S. H. SHETH, J. :- The plaintiff is a displaced person from West Pakistan. He does not hold a verified claim. He is, therefore, a non-claimant. He has been residing in a tenement situate in Varashiya Colony at Baroda which is a Government built colony. The tenement in his occupation was allotted to him. The Central Government some time back took decision to dispose of all the tenements to Varashiya Colony. The tenement to the occupation of the plaintiff was therefore also to be disposed of. The plaintiff applied to the appropriate authority to transfer to him the tenement in his occupation. He relied upon Rule 42 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 in support of his application. The appropriate officer rejected his application and put to sale his tenement. The defendant No. 5 purchased it at the auction sale. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for a declaration that the auction sale of the tenement in his possession was ultra vires the powers of the officer of the Central Government and that, therefore, the said auction had not conferred any title upon the defendant No. 5. He joined to the suit as, defendants the Union of India, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Regional Settlement Commissioner, the State of Gujarat and auction purchaser Bhagwandas Kandomal.

2. It was inter alia contended in defence by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff had no right enforceable at law.

3. The learned trial Judge raised preliminary issues relating to the maintainability of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try such a suit. He held that the plaintiff had no right enforceable at law and, therefore, his suit could not be maintained. He also held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. In view of his findings on these two preliminary issues he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court against the decree passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned Extra Assistant Judge at Baroda who heard the appeal concurred in the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.

4. It is that appellate decree which is called in question by the plaintiff in this Second Appeal.

5. Mr. Majmudar, appearing for the plaintiff, has raised two contentions before us. His first contention is that Rule 42 of the said Rules creates in favour of the plaintiff a right enforceable at law. His second contention is that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit because the act of putting to auction sale the tenement in the occupation of the plaintiff is ultra vires the powers of the officer who did it.

6. This appeal in the first instance came up for hearing before my learned brother before whom an unreported decision of Mr. Justice D.P. Desai in Second Appeal No. 42 of 1965 decided on 21-12-1970 (Guj) was cited. He has taken the view that Section 36 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and Rule 42 neither creates in favour of a displaced person any right enforceable at law nor does it create any duty in favour of the appropriate officer which can be enforced. My learned brother did not agree with the view taken by Mr. Justice D.P. Desai in the aforesaid decision and referred this matter to the Division Bench.

7. It is under these circumstances that this appeal has been placed before us.

8. The first contention raised by Mr. Majmudar requires the examination of the scheme of the said Act and the said Rules. We propose to briefly refer to the relevant sections and the relevant Rules. The preamble to the said Act shows that it has been enacted for achieving two objects-payment of compensation and rehabilitation grants to displaced persons. Bearing these paramount objects of the Act in mind we propose to examine some of the relevant provisions of the said Act. Section 2(a) defines 'compensation pool' in