The civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging an order of the Settlement authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the statutory provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff Ranga Singh whose suit has been dismissed by the trial Judge and also by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Hissar, in exercise of his appellate powers.

2. The pertinent facts of this litigation may be briefly narrated. Lal Singh, father of Gurbux Singh and Chogath Singh defendants-respondents, had mortgaged with possession land measuring 35 bighas situated in village Attari of District Lahore, now in Pakistan, in the year 1943, for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of Ranga Singh. After partition, the suit land measuring 20 bighas and 2 biswas was allotted to Ranga Singh in lieu of the land which had been mortgaged with him by Lal Singh. Ranga Singh actually took possession of this land in the year 1953.

Subsequently, Gurbux Singh and Chogath Singh obtained a decree for possession by redemption of this land from the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sirsa, on 18th of December, 1957, on the allegation that some land of Lal Singh had been mortgaged in Pakistan with Raj Kumar, Balwant Rai and Kundan Singh (son of Ranga Singh) for a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, According to the plaintiff, the mortgage in respect of which a redemption decree was obtained by Gurbux Singh and Choguth Singh was different from the mortgage of 1943 in lieu of which the suit land had been allotted to the plaintiff.

Both the trial Judge and the first appellate Court have found that the plaintiff had not established his mortgagee rights in respect of the land which is now in his possession and have accordingly dismissed his suit. I may mention that in the decree of 18th of December, 1957, in which Ranga Singh was a party, the Court had made a direction that he should file a separate action to establish his mortgagee rights, and in consequence the present suit has been brought for an injunctive remedy to restrain the defendants from taking possession of 20 bighas and 2 biswas of land now in the plaintiffs occupation, in village Khairpur, Tehsil Sirsa,

3. Both the Courts below have held that the civil Courts cannot entertain the present suit the matter having been decided by a competent authority under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Section 36 of which lays down that

"no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."

4. It has been contended by Mr. Wasu that there is clear and unimpeachable evidence to establish the title of the plaintiff to this land regarding which an order of dispossession has been made without any notice to him. He has urged that the order of the departmental authorities being ultra vires the Act, the civil Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. I may first deal with the question of jurisdiction. On basis of verification made by Lal Singh, an order was made by the Naib Tehsildar of Fatehabad on 23rd of September 1948 (Exhibit P. 5) declaring Ranga Singh to be a mortgagee of die land for Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the sanads, Exhibits P. 3 and P. 4 dated 8-7-1949 were delivered to Ranga Singh as a mortgagee of the land. From a perusal of Exhibit P. 5 it appears that Lal Singh himself admitted before the Naib Tehsildar in the presence of the other respectables of the village that his property was mortgaged with Ranga Singh plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Possession of the suit land was taken by Ranga Singh in pursuance of the right bestowed on him by the sanads. Reliance has been placed by the Courts below on a copy of the order passed by Mr. Gurbakhsh Singh, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, on 26th October 1955. This order (Exhibit D. 5) was passed on a note which was submitted by Mr