The power to cancel the acquisition of land must be exercised in accordance with the law, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in matters determined by the competent authority or arbitrator under the Punjab Act of 1953.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Plaintiffs-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below.

Facts

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that they are owners in possession of land measuring 74 kanals and 15 marlas. It was pleaded that the aforesaid land was requisitioned for setting up a brickklin and removal of earth for making bricks for construction of new industrial township, Faridabad as per notification No. 40, dated 31.01.1950 under the provisions of the East Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948 (For Short-Act of 1948). Possession of the land was taken on 02.02.1951. It is further pleaded that the aforesaid land was compulsorily acquired by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 01.04.1963 issued by the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, exercising powers under Section 7 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "Punjab Act of 1953"). The government subsequently discovered that notification dated 01.04.1963 was illegal and void and, therefore, acquisition was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide notification dated 27.04.1971, published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 11.05.1971. Hence they are entitled to restoration of the possession. Plaintiffs impleaded three defendants, namely, State of Haryana, Union of India and M/s Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd.. The plaintiffs further stated that defendant no. 3- Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. is in possession of the suit land at the time of allotment by defendant no. 2 and have raised construction thereupon.

3. State of Haryana and Union of India and M/s Gedore Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. contested the suit. A joint written statement was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 pleading that besides the suit land, 136 acres of land in village Mujesar was also requisitioned and subsequently acquired by notification dated 03.02.1951. It was further pleaded that the District Magistrate, Gurgaon, requisitioned the land vide order dated 31.01.1950 for industrial purposes and possession of the land was taken by the District Magistrate on 02.02.1950. The land was placed at the disposal of Erstwhile Faridabad Development Board, predecessor-in-interest of the Union of India qua the land. The land was subsequently converted into plots along with another area of 126 acres and the entire land was developed into an industrial belt. The State of Haryana pleaded that the acquisition of the land was further validly made by vide notification dated 01.04.1963 under the Punjab Act of 1953 and, therefore, it was not within the powers and jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to cancel the notification acquiring the land. The notification was also alleged to be illegal as it is nonspeaking, containing no reasons for cancellation. It was further pleaded that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction in view of the express bar contained in Section 19 of the Punjab Act of 1953 as well as under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons(Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. It was further pleaded by the State of Haryana that dispute regarding the payment of compensation if have not settled earlier, can be settled separately now.

4. The Union of India also filed a separate written statement on the same lines as was pleaded by the State of Haryana.

5. Defendant no. 3 filed a separate written statement and pleaded that they were allotted 3 plots by the Central Government-Union of India spread over area of 9.74 acres. It was pleaded that on 03.06.1966, plot no. 4 measuring 4.92 acres was allotted whereas plot nos. 1 and 2 measuring 4.82 acres was allotted on 04.11.1969. Defendant no. 3 further pleaded that it is a bonafide purchaser having been allotted plots by the Government and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

6. Now at this stage, it would be relevant to notice various statutory provisions. Initially the land