The central legal point established in the judgment is the restriction on the jurisdiction of civil courts in disputes related to evacuee property or composite property under the Act of 1950 and the Act of 1951.

Manak Mohta, J.-By this appeal, the plaintiff-appellant Mukhtiyar Ahmed has assailed the Judgment and decree dated 110.1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Balotra Camp at Barmer in Civil Original Suit No. 18 of 1983 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are as under:-

The plaintiff stated in his plaint that a plot measuring 19- 4" x 58 -8" is situated in Teliyon Ka Bas at Barmer. The property stated in the plaint was in his possession from the time of his grand father Ismail, a patta of this land was granted by the former Jagirdar of Barmer to his grand-father in Samvat 1977. The plaintiff stated that this property was never declared evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (for short the Act of 1950) or composite property under the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (for short the Act of 1951). The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No. 4 Tehsildar, Barmer on 22.05.1980 issued sale proclamation including the above mentioned property in connection with Suit No. 192 of 1977 ( 84 J.U 60) on behalf of defendant No. 5 State Competent Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. It was stated that when he came to know these facts he filed written protest on 07.06.1980 before the Competent Officer stating, inter alia, that with regard to the plaintiff s property, the sale proclamation was wrongly issued. His property was never declared evacuee property or composite property. It was alleged that the property was auctioned by the Tehsildar, Barmer on 28.06.1980 in favour of respondent No. 6. The State Competnet Officer without taking into consideration the written objections made by the plaintiff . During pendency of the objections, he confirmed the auction proceedings and issued sale certificate in favour of defendant No. 6. It is further said that the protest petition was dismissed on 17.01.1983 for non-appearance. The plaintiff again moved an application to restore that protest petition but that too was dismissed on 18.04.1983. Meanwhile the State Competent Officer issued a sale certificate on 10.03.1983 in favour of defendant No. 6. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the description of the concerned evacuee property was different. The State Competent Officer asked verification from the Tehsildar, Barmer but the Tehsildar without making enquiry into the matter wrongly repotred that the plaintiff s property was evacuee property. The plaintiff stated that on the basis of these averments, he filed a civil suit alleging that the total auction proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction and prayed that the auction proceedings as well as sale certificate be quashed. He also sought a relief of declaration of title and injunction with regard to the suit property.

3. In reply, filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 5, it was stated that the allegations made in the plaint were not correct. In fact, the property in dispute belonged to Hussain and Tannu S/o Alfoo, by Caste Musalman Teli. During partition when they left India for Pakistan, their property, after due enquiry, was declared evacuee property in Suit No.23/53-54 on 18.04.1955. Further it was stated that on the protest made by Smt. Sakina d/o Alfoo, her 1/5th share was recognized and on that basis, this property was declared composite property under the Act of 1951 and was ordered to auction. Meanwhile Jaitoon d/o Smt. Sakila and mother of the present plaintiff , also made protest but that was dismissed. After getting the correct verification of boundaries by the Tehsildar, the property was auctioned and the sale certificate was issued. Meanwhile the plaintiff filed a protest petition but later on, he did not appear and hence his protest petition was dismissed and restoration application was also dismissed. It was submitted that under the concerned Acts, the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. The defendant No. 6 also filed