The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the Civil Court's jurisdiction was ousted, the plaintiffs could succeed in insisting on following the procedure under Section 12 of the Act of 1950 or under Section 19 of the Act of 1958.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal involves an irony faced by the person who is migrated to India from Pakistan after the partition. Neither the displaced person [Shri Adumal Morandamal] nor his legal representative Defendant No.3- Bhojraj got the land as per the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1954"). As on today, after the passage of several years, even this Court is not aware as to whether the said allottee got the land or not. It seems that this situation has arisen probably due to lack of coordination between the Government Authorities and due to insensitivity shown by the concerned person. However, when the Constitutional Court has noticed this situation, the Court cannot shut its eyes and confined itself to the issues raised before it. If required, this Court has to pass necessary orders (within the limits of appellate jurisdiction), so that the displaced persons will get relief. At the same time, this Court has also to see that the interest of other stakeholders is protected.

2. In this appeal, this Court is required to consider the right of tenant/purchaser on one hand and right of an allottee under the Displaced Persons (Compensation And Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 on the other hand. The plaintiffs'/ appellants' predecessor-in-title considered to be the purchaser of the land as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1958"), whereas the same land is allotted to the defendant No.3 under the provisions of the Act of 1954.

FILING OF SUIT

3. When the Tahsildar Akola asked the plaintiffs to visit the site for giving possession to the defendant No.3, plaintiffs were required to file a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola. The State of Maharashtra, the Tahsildar, Akola and the allottee-Bhojraj were the three defendants. The plaintiffs have asked for :-

(a) declaration of ownership over the suit land and

(b) permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their possession over the suit land.

4. Though the defendants have appeared, they have not filed written statement. Defendant No.3 only filed reply to the temporary injunction application. He has denied the averments made in the plaint. Being the legal representatives of the original allottee-Shri Adumal Morandamal, he has claimed possession over the suit land. As he could not get the possession, he was compelled to file Writ Petition No. 3039/1988 in this Court (Principal Seat) and this Court directed the Government to hand over the possession upto 31.03.1993. He pleaded that as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, the provisions of any other law will have no bearing. As per the provisions of Section-8 (4) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), the Custodian [in whom the Evacuee Property vests] is entitled to allot it to any displaced person. He has also objected to the jurisdiction of the Court.

5. Both the parties have agreed for adjudication of the dispute only on the basis of the documents. They have not adduced any oral evidence. The Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. It was mainly for the reason that the Custodian under the Act of 1950 is entitled to decide to whom the land will be allotted and as such the Civil Court will not be having jurisdiction. There was a reliance placed on the provisions of Section 46 of the Act of 1950 and Section 36 of the Act of 1958. The findings of the trial Court are as follows :- The Trial Court observed :-

"as per the provisions of the Law, the defendants are duty bound to hand over the possession of the suit land as per directions of the custodian. The custodian will see as to whom the suit property is to be allotted and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere into his right" [Para-19]

FIRST APPEAL

6