1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIIL APPEAL NO. 5322   OF 2008                (Arising out of SLP(C)No.3331 OF 2006)

LAHORIMAL JETHANAND ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

MANAGING OFFICER/TAHSILDAR, JALNA AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appellant herein migrated to India from Pakistan in the year

1948.  He was registered under Section 5 of Bombay Refugees Act, 1948.  A

certificate to that effect was issued in his favour. By an order dated 11.10.1994

passed by the Settlement Commissioner, he was allotted House No. 4003 in the

District of Jalna, in  lieu of  his claim over the land that he owned and possessed

in Pakistan.  

Respondent  No.4  indisputably  was  in  possession  of  the  said

premises.  A  notice  dated  2.4.2005  was  issued  asking  it  to  vacate  the  said

premises in terms of Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and

Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954.  The  respondent  filed  a  writ  petition  before  the

2

Bombay High Court. The said writ petition was allowed directing:     

“In view of this position, the writ petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. However, the Managing Officer is directed to take into consideration the observations made above and give reasonable  opportunity  to  the  petitioners  before  passing further necessary orders. Considering the time taken in this matter,  we  expect  that  the  Managing  Officer  will  pass necessary orders within a period of two months form the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners to appear before the Managing  Officer  and  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  the Managing Officer to issue further notices to the petitioners to appear before him. The petitioners should, suo motu, appear before the Managing Officer on 3rd April, 2000.”

Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof the Managing Officer

heard the parties. However, despite the fact that limited notice was issued to

respondent  No.4,  their  other  contentions  were  also  entertained  and  it  was

ordered:

“The representation made by the petitioner is allowed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to get the property on Government approved rates as are prevalent today as per B & C Department.  In case the respondent obtains  an order from  the  competent  authorities  holding  him  entitled  to receive amount of compensation within a period of six month then  he  can  withdraw  the  said  amount  deposited  by  the petitioner  after  assessment  at  the  Government  approved rates. The request of the respondent for allotment of house No. 4003 is rejected.

The petitioners are directed to execute a bond on a stamp

paper of Rs. 20/- giving an undertaking that they are ready to

purchase the house in question at price as may be determined

by B & C Department on approved Government rates. If the

petitioners are not ready to purchase the said property than

they may be evicted and the property be sold by auction as

per rules laid in Govt. letter dated 1.1.88 & 3.3.95.

3

The notice issued to the petitioners in the year 1995 for their

eviction is withdrawn.”

The  appeal  as  well  as  a  revision  application  preferred  by  the

appellant thereagainst have been dismissed. He questioned the validity of the

said  orders by  filing  a writ  petition before  the  High Court  of  Judicature at

Bombay.   It  was  marked  as  Writ  Petition  No.  6762/2002.  By  reason  of  the

impugned judgment dated 11.10.2005, the said writ petition has been dismissed

by the High Court directing:

“By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to hand over peaceful,  vacant  possession  of  the  house  property  bearing No. 4003-Jaina. Such prayer can better be decided in a civil suit.  Similar  is  the  prayer  regarding  cancellation  of conveyance in favour of the petitioner. That also is a prayer which  can  be  agitated  before  the  appropriate  civil  court. Reserving  those  rights  the  petition  is  dismissed.  Civil Application  No.  1654  of  2004  stands  disposed  of accordingly.”

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit

that  keeping  in  view  the  provisions  of  Section  36  of  the  Displaced  Persons

(Compensation  and  Rehabilitation)  Act,  1954  as  also  Section  46  of  the

Administration  of  Evacuee  Property  Act,  1950,  the  Civil  Court  has  no

jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned counsel appears to be correct.  

Section  36  of  the  Displaced  Persons  (Compensation  and

Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, reads as under:

4

“Bar  of  jurisdiction.-  Save  as  otherwise  expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain  any suit  or  proceeding  in  respect  of  any  matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to  determine,  and  no  injunction  shall  be  granted  by  any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.”

Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950,

reads as under:

“Jurisdiction  of  Civil  Courts  barred  in  certain matters.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Court or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction-

(a)  to  entertain  or  adjudicate  upon  question  whether  any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property; or

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(c)  to  question  the  legality  of  any  action  taken  by  the Custodian-General or the Custodian under this Act; or

(d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian-General or the  Custodian  is  empowered  by  or  under  this  Act  to determine.”

The provisions of the 1954 Act as also 1950 Act are absolutely clear

and explicit, in terms whereof the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.  This

aspect  of  the  matter is  covered by  a  decision  of  this  Court  in  Custodian  of

Evacuee Property, Punjab & Ors. vs. Jafran Begum, (AIR 1968 SC 169).       

5

We, therefore,  are of  the opinion that  the High Court could not

have directed the appellant to file a civil suit. The impugned order, therefore,

cannot be sustained and it is set aside accordingly. The matter is remitted to the

High Court for consideration thereof afresh on merit. The appeal is disposed of.

The respondent No.4 shall not create any third party interest in the

meantime.  

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

merit of the matter.  

We  would  however  request  the  High  Court  to  consider  the

desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.  

......................J (S.B. SINHA)

.......................J   (CYRIAC JOSEPH)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 29, 2008.