IMPORTANT POINT
Jurisdiction of civil court having been ousted, the suit itself was barred, therefore it was not open to the trial court to record any finding.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 5 in the suit, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1163 of 1991 (O&M). Respondent nos.1 to 4 herein were the plaintiffs in Suit No. 496 of 1985 filed before the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala in the State of Punjab. In the said suit following reliefs were claimed by them :

"Suit for declaration that they are absolute owners in possession being bonafide purchasers for consideration and without notice of land measuring 82 kanals 3 marlas bearing khasra nos.54/22min (4-0), 61/2 (8-0), 1min (4-18), 9(10-4), 54/22min (4-0), 61/min (4-0), 55/16 (8-0), 17 (7-7), 54/19min (4-0), 20 (8-0), 21 (8-0), 54/19min (4-0), 25/25 (6-17), and 60/5/2 (0-17), total 82 kanals 3 marlas, situated in village Kamalpur Patti, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala as per Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 and the order of learned Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala dated 28.3.1985 vide which the sale in favour of Mohan Singh son of Alladatta of village Mothawala, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala dated 23.12.1964 qua the suit land has been cancelled and allotment of this land in favour of Gopal Singh defendant No. 5 has been considered right is highly illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted without jurisdiction, against the provisions of law and is thus unsustainable and not binding on the rights and title of the plaintiffs over the suit land with the consequent relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from reauctioning the suit land or alienating it in any other manners and further restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land in any manner."

3. The suit schedule property was auctioned in the restricted auction under the provisions of The Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act 1976 [for short 'the Act']. It was originally sold to one Mohan Singh, son of Aladitta, resident of Kamalpur in the auction held on23.12.1964. There was a restriction on transfer which was held pursuant to an auction, not to alienate the suit property till the final realisation of the loan amount taken by the allottee for purchase of the land or till the expiry of 10 years which is later. On the ground that the said Mohan Singh has breached the condition, proceedings were initiated for resumption of the land. Initial order for resumption passed by the authority was set aside in the writ petition by the High Court. Thereafter, further order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala on 28.03.1985. The aforesaid order was passed by recording a finding that cancellation of the auction was proper and further confirmed the allotment made in favour of the appellants herein.

4. The said order dated 28.03.1985 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under has become final.

5. The trial court, by recording the finding that respondent-plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers, has decreed the suit by declaring the order dated 28.03.1985 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act as null and void and granted consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 25.01.1989, the appellant herein who is defendant No. 5 has filed Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1989 and defendant nos.1 to 4 which are authorities of the State also filed Civil Appeal No. 59 of 1989. By the common judgment and decree dated 18.01.1991, the first appellate court allowed the appeals by setting aside the judgment and order of the trial court mainly on the ground that in view of the provision under Section 16 of the Act, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Further