The jurisdiction of civil court is not ousted if the order passed by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice and is not within the four corners of the statute.

1. - This rule is directed against an order passed by the Central Government on September 10. 1975, through its delegated authority viz, Commissioner-cum Surety to the Government, Department of Rehabilitation, Rajasthan, Jaipur, in a case under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties, Asa and Ami Khan, alleged to be the sons of one Suleman are residents of the village Parlika, Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Ganganagar. since prior to the partition of India before 1947. It is alleged further, that Suleman was in possession of Khasra Nos. 4,0 and 411 measuring about 39 bighas and 12 biswas of land at the said village. It is alleged that the area was declared evacuee property on the eve of partition and consequently was allotted in the year 1960 as evacuee property. Subsequently, Asa and Ami Khan" sons of Suleman applied to the Custodian General for the release and restoration of property under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act of 19.o and by order dated April 4,1963 the property was declared as non evacuee property and therefore, it is alleged, the petitioner applied for restoration of the property. The Chief Settlement Commissioner by the order dated May 28, 1975 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner preferred a revisional application before the competent authority for an order of restoration from the opposite party who were in possession.

3. It is not disputed that the original allottee secured Sanad of temporary allotment in their favour on 25-2-0-65. Subsequent to the issue of the Sanand the property was sold on 26-6-1965 and again on 23-7 69. It is alleged that these sales were all void be initio. In view of the declaration by the competent authority under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, the property is not an evacuee property and it was directed by the order which is under challenge, the property be restored to the petitioner, before the authority, as non-evacuee property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present possessor of the property moved this Court to obtain the present rule.

4. It must be stated, in the mean time the petitioner filed a proceeding before the competent authority for a declaration that the property is not an evacuee property. In that suit Asa and Ami Khan, sons of Suleman, were made party and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein and that suit has never been challenged. There were no affidavit by any of the parties in these proceedings. On these allegations the parties come to trial.

5. Mr. Mridul on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the finding of the authorities concerned that the property is not an evacuee property is not a proper finding and does not take into consideration the meaning of the word 'evacuee' in respect of the persons who were the erstwhile residents of the State of Bikaner in 1948 Older, namely, Bikaner State Evacuee (Administration of Property) Order of 1948. In the said order 'evacuee' has been defined as follows.

2(b) "Evacuee" means a person ordinarily resident in or owning property or carrying on business within the territories comprised in the Bikaner State, who on account of civil disturbance, or the fear of such disturbance of the partition of the country:

(i) leaves, or has since the first day of March 1947 left the said territories for a place outside the State of Bikaner, or

(ii) Cannot personally occupy or supervise his property or carry on his business or watch his interests or enforce his rights.

6. Therefore, at the relevant time admittedly Suleman was resident of Bikaner. The word "Evacuee" is to be considered as defined in the said Order. There is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Asha Ram and other Civil Appeals decided on February 24, 1984, where the same question arose. It was held by their Lordships of the Division Bench that for the purpose of Musli