A.K. Sikri, J.

1. This is the first appeal from the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1971 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No. 257/1969, which was filed by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the suit deciding the preliminary issue in favor of the respondents herein, namely, the said suit was barred under Sections 27 and 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 {hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act}. In order to appreciate the controversy, we may first state, in brief, the facts as stated in the plaint on the basis of which the suit came to be filed.

2. Premises known as Shafiq Manzil situated at No. 2, Doctors Lane, New Delhi (for short, the suit property) was acquired by the Government as evacuate property and was made part of the compensation pool constituted under the 1954 Act. This property was put to auction on two occasions with reserve price of Rs.2,50,000/-. However, these attempts were not successful. It was, thus, put to auction third time again when the bid of one Shri Balwant Singh at Rs.2,50,100/-was accepted in June 1960. Though Shri Balwant Singh paid the initial amount, he failed to pay the balance sale price. Hence the Settlement Authorities, vide order dated 2.12.1960, forfeited the earnest money paid by Shri Balwant Singh and cancelled the bid. Shri Balwant Singh filed appeal against the order dated 2.12.1960, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, vide his orders dated 2.8.1963.

3. After the dismissal of the appeal, the Settlement Authorities, under the 1954 Act, put the suit property to auction once again by inviting tenders. The appellants herein submitted his tender on 19.10.1963 quoting the price of Rs.2,51,400/-against the reserve price of Rs.2,50,000/-. This was the highest price offered by the appellants/ plaintiffs, as found by the Regional Settlement Commissioner on 21.10.1963. However, before orders could be passed accepting the bid of the appellants, Shri Balwant Singh filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi. We may note that before filing the said writ petition, Shri Balwant Singh had filed revision petition as well, which was dismissed by the Central Government. In the writ petition, the High Court passed stay order dated 17.10.1963 against acceptance of the tender. It was because of this stay order, no formal acceptance of tender was sent to the appellants.

4. The writ petition filed by Shri Balwant Singh was subsequently dismissed. On the dismissal of this petition, the appellants vide letter dated 19.2.1965 requested the Rehabilitation Authorities to finalize the sale in their favor. However, in the meantime, Shri Balwant Singh preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order passed in the writ petition. Because of this reason, the appellants were informed that his request for accepting the bid and issuing sale certificate could not be accepted. Subsequently, however, the LPA filed by Shri Balwant Singh was also dismissed by the Division Bench.

5. It so happened that in the meantime the appellants were called to accept some additional terms in the lease to be executed by the land and Development Officer. The appellants did not agree to the revised terms. Their tender was ultimately rejected on 18.4.1966 and orders were passed for selling the said property by public auction once again.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 18.4.1966, the appellants preferred appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under Section 23 of the 1954 Act. This appeal was dismissed on 12.9.1966. Thereafter, the appellants preferred revision petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act before the Central Government. This revision petition was also dismissed.

7. After the dismissal of the appeal as well as revision petition, the appellants filed Suit No. 257/1969 on the Orig