1. Dispute over ownership of passage—evacuee property rights—bar of civil court jurisdiction under Section 46 of Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Agrawal : V.N.Khare
Pavitter Singh
Versus
Niranjan Lal Malhotra
Case No. : 1979 of 1992
Date of Decision : 8/21/01
Civil courts are barred from adjudicating matters empowered to be determined by the custodian under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. Once such determinations attain finality, inclusive of constitutional writ proceedings, a civil suit on the same issue is not maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 - Section 46 - Jurisdiction of civil courts barred - No civil court or revenue court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property, or to question the legality of any action taken by the custodian general or the custodian, or in respect of any matter which the custodian general or the custodian is empowered by or under this Act to determine. (Paras 2)
(B) Finality of proceedings - When a matter has been adjudicated upon under a special act and the judgment has attained finality, including through a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not open to a civil court to adjudicate upon the same issue over and over again in a subsequent suit. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Dispute arose regarding a passage included in a registered conveyance deed executed by a custodian for an evacuee property. The owner of an adjacent property objected to the inclusion of the passage, leading to proceedings before the custodian and appellate authorities. It was determined that the passage belonged to the adjacent property, and although the occupant of the evacuee property had a right of passage, he was not the owner. This finding was affirmed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and attained finality. Subsequently, the occupant filed a civil suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the first appellate court and the second appellate court erred in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction. The matter concerning the ownership of the passage had already been adjudicated under the relevant Act and the subsequent High Court order had attained finality.
Issues: Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for recovery of possession when the ownership and easementary rights of the property in question have already been determined by authorities under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, and such decisions have attained finality.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 expressly bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters empowered to be determined by the custodian. Since the question of ownership versus easementary rights was decided in proceedings under the Act and confirmed by the High Court, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the same issue.
Result: The appeal is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued civil court lacked jurisdiction as matter was finally decided under evacuee property proceedings. (Para 2 )
3. Question of ownership of passage finally determined in evacuee proceedings; civil court could not readjudicate same issue. (Para 3 )
4. Once a matter is finally adjudicated under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, civil court cannot retry it. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; judgment set aside; no order as to costs. (Para 4 )
6. Is the civil court's jurisdiction barred under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950?
Yes, civil court cannot entertain any question already adjudicated under the Act, including property ownership rights determined by the custodian. (Para 2 , 3 )
JUDGMENT
V.N.KHARE, J.
(1) PROPERTY nos. XV/5326 and XV/5327 were originally owned by one Indra Devi. Prior to 1947 Indra Devi sold the property no. XV/5326 to Newaz Khan. After partition of the country Newaz Khan migrated to Pakistan. Consequently, the property no. XV/5326 became an evacuee property. However, the said property was being occupied by respondent - Niranjan Lal Malhotra. Since Niranjan Lal Malhotra was occupant of the said property, the custodian department transferred the said property in his favour by a registered conveyance deed. In the conveyance deed, the passage to reach the main road was also shown in property no. XV/5326. The other property no. XV/5327 was sold by its owner Indra Devi to one Amir Khan. Subsequently, Amir Khan sold the said property to Amolak Singh, the father of the appellant herein. When the predecessor of the appellant came to know that in conveyance deed executed by the custodian, the passage pertaining to property no. XV/ 5327 of which he is owner has been shown, as passage to property no. XV/ 5326, he filed an objection before the custodian. The said objection was rejected. Subsequently, he preferred an appeal before the deputy custodian general, evacuee property, New Delhi. The appellate authority found that the passage shown in the conveyance deed in fact pertains to property no. 5327 but the respondent has right of passage over the said passage. In that view of the matter the deputy custodian issued a direction that the passage shall be excluded from the conveyance deed, but the respondent shall have right of passage. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred a revision before the chief settlement commissioner, but the said revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the said orders were challenged by means of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court held that the respondent shall have only an easementary right of passage over the said portion of passage. This judgment attained finality between the parties. Not contended with that, the respondent filed a suit in the civil court for recovery of possession among other reliefs. Amolak Singh contested the suit and one of the pleas taken in the written statement was that in view of section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the suit is not maintainable. The trial court held that the matter has already been adjudicated upon under the Act and, therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court was of the view that the dispute between the parties can be gone into by the civil court and in that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the suit on merits. The appellants herein preferred a second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court before the High Court but the same was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.
(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that in view of the fact that the matter stood finally decided in the proceeding under the Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. We find substance in the argument. Section 46 of the Act reads as under:
"46. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in certain matters:- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil court or revenue court shall have jurisdiction:-
(A) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property; or
(B) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not an intending evacuee; or
(C) to question the legality or any action taken by the custodian general or the custodian under this Act; or
(D) in respect of any m
