P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

The case was then fixed for evidence of the parties on the 15th of February 1961, but before that date a further preliminary issue, based on the allegation of the defendant that the land in dispute had been sold to two gentlemen, Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din, C. S. P., and Mr. Aftab Ahmad, was added: "Whether Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din and Mr. Aftab Ahmad are necessary parties ? (O. D.)" 13y order dated the 4th of January 1961, that issue was decided against the defendant. It may also be added that in the course of the proceedings an Interim injunction was granted against the defendant and confirmed on the 13th of July 1960.

5. On the 8th of May 1961, the defendant filed an appli cation (C. M. No. 1139 of 1961) in this Court for transfer of the suit from the Court of the Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, to this Court on the ground that as the plaintiff, though he had meanwhile been transferred from Rawalpindi to Jhelum, was still a District and Sessions Judge, the defendant apprehended that he would not receive Impartial justice from the Court of a Civil Judge at Rawalpindi. That application was granted by order dated the 12th of June 1961.

6. On the 24th of November 1961, the defendant filed an application (C. M. No. 3590 of 1961) for the framing of an additional issue on the point of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine the matter in dispute. The application was granted by order dated the 26th of March 1962, on payment of Rs. 100 as conditional costs in view of the late stage at which the appli cation had been made. The Issue runs: "Is the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts barred on the grounds alleged by the defendant in his application dated the 24th of November 1961 ? (O. D.)"

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the opinion that the above issue must be decided in favour of the defendant. The order of transfer of the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff was reviewed by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Cantonment Area, Rawalpindi, by order dated the 6th of July 1960, the second paragraph of which runs: "The property was rightly transferred to the claimant under para. I of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The question for decision is whether the transfer of the land In question attached to the bungalow was valid or not. It was not known at the time of transfer of the property to the claimant that a portico of the land legally belonged to the Rawalpindi Improvement Trust. As the land In question had already been acquired by the Improvement Trust, I order that this portion of the land, comprising 6 kanals and 14 marlas, should not be transferred to the claimant. Incidentally it may be mentioned that the Appendix X and P. T. O. Issued to the transferee do not indicate the full particulars regarding the disposal of surplus land."

8. Against the above order an appeal was filed in the Court of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi Region, Rawalpindi, which was dismissed by order dated the 1st of December 19611, as unnecessary and premature", the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner remarking: "The question arises whether the portion of the property acquired by the Improvement Trust Is according to the present factual position a part of the compensation pool or not. The Settlement Authority having acted in the light of the notification of acquisition, according to which this part of 6 kanals and 14 marlas was no longer a part of the compensation pool, if the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is set aside by me, my order would be tentamount to treating these 6 kanals 14 marlas as a part of the compensation pool, which I cannot do particularly when the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court. Therefore, so long as the Civil Court does not come to a decision about the vires of the land acquisition, it is not possible to interfere with the present position in any manner."

9. Great reliance has been placed by the plaintiff on the words italicised above as establishing the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to try the matter In dispute, but with greatest respect to the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner, neither the Civil Judge nor this Court is bound by his finding, which Is, in my opinion, wrong. The correct position is that unless and until it Is held that the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 16th of July 1960, can be challenged in a Civil Court, the question of entering into the vires of the acquisition of the land in dispute by the Trust does not arise.

10. It may here be mentioned that although (sic) section 21 (1) (a) (iii) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958), lays down that a Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall not review an order, whether passed by himself or by his predecessor‑in -office, without first obtaining the sanction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned. It is noted in paragraph 1 of the order under consideration that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre II, sought permission of the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi, for review of the transfer order in favour of the plaintiff, which permission was granted by order dated the 20th of June 1960. It would appear that the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Cantonment Area, exercises or exercised, the functions of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre II.

11. It also cannot be disputed that the effect of the order under consideration is to deprive the plaintiff of the land in dispute. Section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act lays down: "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by any officer appointed under this Act, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court." Moreover, section 25 of the same Act states :‑ "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Central Government or an officer appointed under this Act is empowered under this Act is to determine, and no injunction, process or order shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act. " In Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji (1960 S C (Pak.) 229) the effect of very similar provisions in the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956) was considered, and the learned Judges held: "These provisions are of very wide import and by necessary intendment, these provisions bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a declaratory suit to establish title to evacuee lands abandoned in India by a refugee claiming to own such lands. A declaratory decree, even if passed in such a suit, can be ignored by the Rehabilitation authorities and any order passed by such authorities contrary to a declaratory decree of this kind, would be immune from attack in a judicial proceeding . . . It would amount to encroachment on that special and exclusive jurisdiction, vested in the Rehabilitation authorities, if similar questions were allowed to be agitated in the Civil Courts."

12. For the reasons given above, I hold that in view of the. provisions of sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, which is accordingly dismissed,1 In the circumstances, however, I pass no order as to costs. K. B. A. Suit dismissed.