IMPORTANT POINT
Civil Courts lack jurisdiction over matters governed by the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, as per Sections 24, 27, and 36, which emphasize the finality of administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

(Pankaj Jain, J.) :

Defendants-Union of India and State of Punjab are in appeal.

2. Piara Singh migrated from Western Punjab in 1947. He was allotted two parcels of land by the Rehabilitation Department. Vide order dated 05.07.1976, he was allotted 42 kanal, 11 marlas of land in Village Seenpura. Vide order dated 19.07.1977, he was allotted 3 standard acres 91/2 units in village Mainwan_ Piara Singh died and the land was inherited by his three sons, namely, Gurdial Singh.. Gurbachan Singh and Mohinder Singh in equal shares.

3. Plaintiff is the purchaser of land in village Seenpura, The sons of the allottee Piara Singh his successors sold their respective shares in favour of the plaintiff vide 07 sale deeds Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. The Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment made in favour of Piara Singh vide order dated 16.04.1980. Plaintiff filed revision petition before Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby parties were ordered to maintain status quo till further orders, After the authorities decided to auction the land, present suit was filed seeking restrained against the respondents from auctioning the same. The suit stands decreed by both the Courts below.

4. The primary contention. raised by the counsel for the appellant is with respect to jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the present suit. Reliance is being placed upon Sections 27 and 36 of the Displaced Person (C&R) Act, 1954.

5. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors. 1986 PLJ 161, Bagicha Singh & Anr. vs. The Chief Settlement Commissioner & Anr. 1967 PLR 296, Smt. Bhuro. & Anr. vs. Punjab State & Ors, 1981 PLJ, 379, Kali Ram etc. vs. Union of India & Ors., ILR(1077) P&H 361, Sardara Singh & Anr. vs. Harbhajan Singh & Ors., AIR 1974 P&H 345, Bhagwan Kaur etc. vs. Ranjit Singh & Anr., 1990 (1) PLR 290, Sona Ram & Anr. vs. Mulakh Raj alias Lekh Raj & Anr. 1999 (1) PLJ 165, Gurbax Singh vs. The Financial Commissioner & Anr. 1991 PLJ 192(SC), Sadhu Singh (dead) by LRs vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1609 and Sarupa & Ors. vs. The Panchayati Akhara, Kala Bara Udasian, Thanesar & Ors. 1998(2) PLR 713.

6. Further reliance is being placed upon law laid down by Supreme Court in case of Randhir Kaur vs. .Prithvi Pal Singh and others reported as (2019) 17 SCC 71 to submit. that the High Court should not interfere with the findings of fact of the lower Courts including findings based upon evidence as provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act and Section 100 of CPC as it stood prior to its ;amendment in 1976 are in pari materia.

7. Counsel for the appellants has placed heavily reliance on Para 15 thereof which reads as under:-

“A perusal of the aforesaid judgments would show that the jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that findings are erroneous, however, gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be, The findings of fact will also include the findings on the basis of documentary evidence. The jurisdiction to interfere in the second appeal is only where there is an error in law or procedure and not merely an error on a question of fact.”

8. The preliminary objection raised by the senior counsel for respondent by relying upon Randhir Kaur’s case ibid is not applicable as the question raised by the appellants is purely legal with respect to jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

9. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff in order to answer the question raised upon the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has tried to find under the provision of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. He submits that the plaintiff being transfer in good faith and for consideration had no other remedy but to approach the Civil Court, Learned Senior counsel submits that it is only before the Civil Court. that the plaintiff could have established his civil right.

10. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

11. This is a case wherein original a