When authorities act in violation of principles of natural justice, the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and Displaced Persons Act does not apply, and valuation of excess land must follow Rehabilitation Department rates rather than Consolidation Authorities' valuations.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–State of Haryana assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal instituted by the State came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1998 passed by the learned Trial Court were affirmed.

2. The factual backdrop, as emerging from the pleadings, may briefly be delineated thus: the respondents–plaintiffs, claiming themselves to be the legal heirs of one Mansaram, instituted a suit for declaration seeking a declaration to the effect that the orders passed by the Settlement Officer-cum-Assistant Settlement Officer, Ambala dated 19.02.1987; Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Hisar dated 08.02.1998 and 30.06.1986, as approved by defendant No.2 vide order dated 28.07.1988, are illegal, null and void, contrary to the instructions issued by the State of Haryana, and not binding upon their rights.

2.1. It is pleaded that Mansaram, being a displaced person, was initially allotted land measuring 32 standard acres and 14 units. Subsequently, upon his application, an additional allotment of 9 standard acres and 4 units was made, thereby increasing his total holding to 42 standard acres and 2.5 units. After his demise, Bishan Das succeeded to the said property. A portion of the land was thereafter sold to one Deewan, and the present plaintiffs, being successors-in-interest of Bishan Das, instituted a suit for pre-emption, which came to be decreed in their favour.

2.2. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that, on 20.08.1976, land measuring 8 standard acres and 10.5 units out of the total allotted area was cancelled on the ground that the same had been allotted in excess. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar, Hisar, vide order dated 30.06.1988, in continuation of an earlier order dated 18.02.1988, ordered the retrieval of land measuring 205 kanals 10 marlas (equivalent to 23 standard acres and 13.5 units) from the plaintiffs.

2.3. The plaintiffs offered to purchase the said area at the rates prescribed by the Government, as permissible under the applicable policy. The competent authority, vide order dated 30.06.1986, permitted such purchase at the rates so determined, which decision was duly approved by the Joint Secretary vide order dated 28.07.1988. Subsequently, the Naib Tehsildar, vide order dated 25.09.1996, assessed the value of the land measuring 8 standard acres and 10.5 units proposed to be retrieved as 279 kanals 17 marlas.

2.4. It is further averred that the Settlement Officer, vide order dated 19.02.1987, while deciding the appeal, directed the retrieval of 8 standard acres and 10.5 units out of the excess allotment of 9 standard acres and 4 units, on the basis of the standard valuation as reflected in the consolidation records. However, in execution thereof, land measuring 205 kanals 10 marlas, equivalent to 23 standard acres and 13.5 units, was actually retrieved vide order dated 30.06.1988.

2.5. The plaintiffs assert that the amount so determined was paid by them under protest. The impugned orders were challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the plaintiffs were entitled to purchase only the excess area of 8 standard acres and 10.5 units at the rates determined by the rehabilitation authorities, and not at the enhanced valuation determined by the consolidation authorities. It was further contended that the rates applicable should be those prevailing at the time of the original