Smt. Kartar Kaur and other vs Natha Singh and others

Rajinder Nath Mittal, J.—This Second Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated September 20, 1973.

Briefly, the facts are that Sunder Singh son of Wassan Singh was the owner of land measuring 311 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Karriala in West Pakistan. During the partition of the country, he migrated to India and settled in village Dharam Kot, in district Ferozepur, where he died. Some agricultural land was allotted in the name of the deceased in village Adamke, Tehsil Mansa in lieu of the land left by him in Wert Pakistan and its possession was given to the Defendants who are his collaterals in the 4th degree. The allottees later sold this property to some other persons.

Shriman Kesar Kaur, Shrimati Kartar Kaur, daughters and Balkar Singh deceased daughter''s son, of the deceased submitted applications to the rehabilitation authorities for allotment of the land in lieu of the land left by the deceased in West Pakistan. As a result of the applications, they were allotted land in village Baras, Tehsil and District Karnal and the possession was delivered to them on December 16, 1962 A mutation was also sanctioned in their favour on June 6, 1963.

It is alleged that the Defendants moved the Rehabilitation Authorities that the land in lieu of the land left by the deceased had been allotted to them in village Adamke and therefore, allotment of land in favour of the Plaintiffs be cancelled, being a double allotment. It is further alleged that the allotment in favour of the Plaintiffs was a valid one. Consequently, they prayed that a declaratory decree to the effect that they being legal heirs of Sunder Singh deceased were entitled to all claims due for the land left by the deceased in West Pakistan, in India, be passed in their favour and the Defendants be restrained from interfering with their possession of the land situated in village Baras.

The suit was contested by the defendents inter alia on the ground that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was not maintainable in that form They further took up some other pleas which are not necessary for the purposes of the decision of the appeal. On the pleas of the parties, 11 issues were framed but the relevant issues for decision of the appeal are issue Nos. 1 and 2 which are as follows -

Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit ?

Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable ?

The learned trial Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit as framed was not maintainable. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, is ordered that the plaint be returned to the plain, tiffs. They went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal who reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit but maintained its finding on issue No 2. He in view of the finding on issue No 2, ordered that the plaint was liable to the rejected and consequently rejected the same. The Plaintiffs have come up in second appeal to this Court.

The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit. The prayer of the Plaintiff Appellants in the present suit is as follows:

Hence it is prayed that a declaratory decree to the effect that the Plaintiffs being legal heirs of Sunder Singh deceased are entitled to all claims due for that land left by Sunder Singh deceased as detailed in para No 1 of the plaint, in India, which are due to him may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants and the Defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs of the land referred to in para 5 of the plaint situated in village Baras Tehsil and District Karnal allotted in lieu thereof as consequential relief....

It will be clear from the abovesaid prayer that the Plaintiffs claimed two reliefs one for declaration and the other for injunction. The Plaintiffs are claiming a declaration regarding the claims of the deceased It caanot be done by them in viaw of the provision of Section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which provides that where there is any dispute as to the person or persons who are entitled to the compensation or as to the apportionment of compensation amongst persons entitled thereto, such dispute after such enquiry as may be prescribed, be decided by the Settlement Officer where the value of the verified claim does not exceed 20,000/- rupees and by the Settlement Commissioner, where the value of the verified claim exceeds 20,000/-rupees. The proviso to the section says that the Settlement Officer or the Settlement Commissioner as the case may be, may refer any dispute to the District Judge nominated in this behalf by the State Government whose decision thereon shall be final. From a perusal of the above said section it is evident that disputes regarding the payment of compensation with respect to the verified claims shall be decided by the Officers mentioned therein. They may, if they so choose, refer the matter to the District Judge. Section 36 provides a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts regarding the matters required to be dealt with under the Act According to it, no Civil Court save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under the Act is empowered by or under tha Act to determine From a cojoint reading of the Section it is clear that the Civil Court has no jurisidiction to try disputes regarding the payment of compensation in respect of the verified claims but it is the authorities under the Act who can do so.

In the aforesaid view, I get support from the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Charanji Lal v. Shrimati Inder Devi alias Inder Kaur (1961) 63 P.L.R. 479, wherein it was held that on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 9, it becomes evident, that it is only a dispute relating to the payment or apportionment of compensation payable in respect of a verified claim of the nature indicated in the section that has been taken away from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that regarding the first prayer, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

The second prayer of the Plaintiffs is regarding injunction to the effect that the Defendants be restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs of the land allotted to them in village Baras. It cannot be disputed that the Plaintiffs can institute a suit making the said prayer. It may, however, be mentioned that there is no allegation in the point that the Defendants were taking steps to dispossess forcibly the Plaintiffs. I shall deal with the matter in some detail in the later part of the judgment. Therefore, issue No. 1 is decided accordingly.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants has not been able to assail the finding of the Lower Appellate Court with regard to issue No. 2. The Plaintiffs stated in the plaint that they had been allotted land in village Baras in lieu of the land left by the deceased in West Pakistan. There is no allegation therein that the land allotted to them has been cancelled. On the other hand, they specifically averred that they were in possession thereof. It is also clear from a reading of the plaint that they were allotted land in lieu of the land left by Sunder Singh deceased as heirs of the deceased. The allegation of the Plaintiffs is that an application has been made by Defendants for cancellation of the allotment. Therefore, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action regarding the first prayer. The Plaintiffs, as already stated above, did not aver in the plaint that the Defendants were threatening to dispossess them. Unless such an allegation was made, the Plaintiffs could not institute a suit for injunction. Therefore, regarding the second prayer also, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. Consequently, the suit is not maintainable in the present form and the conclusions of the Lower Appellate Court in that regard are correct.

For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.