The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters related to evacuee property.

Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral)- In this present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiffs have assailed the judgment dated 30.6.2007 passed by the District Judge, Una, H.P. in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 2004, affirming the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amb, Distt. Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 110-I of 2003.

2. The appellants herein, as plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit land and that cancellation of the sale certificate by the respondents-State, to the extent of 37 Kanal 10 Marla out of the suit land is illegal and further allotment of the same in favour of respondent Sh. Lal Chand, who in turn exchanged the same with Sh. Roda Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 6 to 9, be declared to be illegal and also mutation entries dated 9.4.1983 and 20.12.2001 in favour of the respondents be held to be illegal.

3. Undisputedly the suit land was a evacuee property and was purchased by Sh. Khushi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in an open auction held on 23.9.1966 by respondents No. 1 to 4. The entire sale consideration, according to the respondents was not paid, hence sale to the extent of 37 Kanal 10 Marla was cancelled and land allotted to the respondent Sh. Lal Chand.

4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issue: “(1). Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land? OPP (2). Whether the defendants are interfering with the possession of plaintiffs over the suit land?

OPP (3). Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (4). Whether this Court is having no jurisdiction? OPD (5). Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD (6). Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and conduct to file this suit? OPD (7). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (8). Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction if so what

is the valuation? OPD

(9). Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file this suit? OPD

(10) Relief.”

5. In view of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the trial Court rejected the plaint for want of jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate the dispute. The plaintiffs appeal, assailing the same also stands dismissed by the District Judge, Una, H.P. in terms of judgment and decree dated 30.6.2007. The plaintiffs suit stands dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

7. In my view no case for interference is made out by the plaintiffs at all. The Act was enacted to make satisfactory arrangement for the management of the property left behind by the people having migrated at the time of partition and for efficient management and administration of the evacuee property.

8. It is the plaintiffs’ own case that the property in question is an evacuee property. Admittedly the same was purchased by way of an open auction.

Sections 46 of the Act reads as under:

“46. Jurisdiction of civil Courts barred in certain matters.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no civil or revenue Court shall have jurisdiction –

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property, or

(b)

(c) to question the legality of any action taken by the Custodian-General or the Custodian under this Act; or

(d) in respect of any matter which the Custodian-General or the Custodian is empowered by or under this Act to determine.”

9. It bars the jurisdiction of the civil Courts from entertaining suit relating to matters where exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the authority under the Act.

10. In the instant case there is a dispute as to whether complete sale consideration was paid by the purchaser of the evacuee property and also as to whether the orders with