P L D 1965 (W (PLP)

Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XLII of 1956), S. 18 & Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 4 & 25‑Evacuee land acquired by Government under S. 4 (3), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958‑Continues, even after acquisition, to be "evacuee property" for purposes of that Act and would be immune from jurisdiction of civil courts Allotment of agricultural land to "A" by Rehabilitation Authority "A" dying before any permanent rights in respect of land could be conferred on him Question of inheritance to rights of allotment held by deceased‑Within exclusive jurisdiction of Rehabilitation Authorities ‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.

9. Umar Draz Ali v. Khurshid Ali and others P L D 1960 Lah. 834; Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others P L D 1960 S C 229; Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others P L D J962 S C 42; M. Jamil Asghar v. Rawalpindi Improvement Trust P L D 1962 Lah. 859 and Mst. Basso v. The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), West Pakistan, Lahore P L D 1963 S C 347 ref. Ramzan v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Legal), Sargodha and another P L D 1963 Lah. 461 rel. Respondent in person. This second appeal is by the defendant Muhammad Hassan, and arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff‑respondent Syed Mumtaz Hussain seeking a declaration to the effect that he was the sole heir of the deceased Syed Abdul Aziz Girdezi, a displaced person from Nanhera in Rajpura Tehsil of Patiala, who had settled in Gujranwala District on migration from India, and had died on the 4th of February 1959 after obtaining an allotment of agricultural land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. On the 27th of February 1959, tire Rehabilitation Authorities sanctioned a mutation of inheritance in favour of the appellant Syed Muhammad Hassan on the basis of a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased Abdul Aziz. The plaintiff filed an appeal which was, however, dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. He then went up in revision to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, and that revision petition was still pending when, he instituted the present suit. ,

2. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was: "Is not the suit legally maintainable in its present form"? After considering the provisions of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 as well as of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act of 1956, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the suit was not triable by a civil Court. He accordingly directed that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. Against this order the plaintiff‑respondent filed an appeal which has been accepted by Mr. Mohsin Tirmizey, District Judge of Gujranwala. The learned District Judge has observed that after the property in dispute had been acquired by the Government of West Pakistan by virtue of a notification issued on the 15th of April 1959 under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, it no longer remained evacuee property and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts was not excluded.

3. It is contended by M. S. M. Zafar, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the land having been allotted to the deceased Abdul Aziz in pursuance of a scheme framed under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 and permanent rights not having been conferred on the deceased under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the question of inheritance could only be dealt with by the Rehabilitation Authorities, irrespective of the fact that a notification had been issued under section 4 of the latter Act acquiring the land for the purposes of that Act. The learned counsel further contends that the view expressed by the learned District Judge that after the notification the property ceased to be evacuee property is not correct in view of a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramzan v. Rehabilit ation Commissioner (Legal), Sargodha and another (P L D 1963 Lah. 461).

4. It seems to me that there is substance in the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. The land in respect of which the question of inheritance has arisen in the present case was allotted to the deceased Abdul Aziz under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme framed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, under section 6 (1) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. It continued to be held by the deceased under the provisions of that Scheme in spite of the promulgation of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and its acquisition by the Government of West Pakistan under section 4 thereof. It has already been stated that no rights had yet been conferred on the deceased under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. In other words, the allotment held by the deceased continued in the nature of a grant under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The view that the allotment is to be regarded as a grant has been consistently expressed in Umar Draz Ali v. Khurshid All and others (P L D 1960 Lah. 834); Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others (P L D 1960 S C 229); Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others (P L D 1962 S C 42); M. Jamil Asghar v. Rawalpindi Improvement Trust (P L D 1962 Lah. 859) and Mst. Basso v. The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), West Pakistan, Lahore (P L D 1963 S C 347). Such being the case, the question of inheritance to the rights of allotment held by the deceased was one within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Autho rities, and could not be agitated before the civil Courts in view q of the provisions of section 18 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, subsection (1) whereof provides that "subject to the provisions of sections 13 and 42 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1956, no order passed by a Rehabi litation Authority under this Act shall be called in question in any civil Court, in any suit, appeal, execution application or other pro ceedings." Similarly, subsection‑ (3) of the same section declares that "no civil Court shall be competent to adjudicate on the rights of or dispossess a person to whom any immovable property has been allotted or leased by a Rehabilitation Authority or by a Custodian or to issue an injunction or other order, in relation to any act done or intended to be done by a Rehabilitation Authority under the provisions of the Act."

5. The question regarding the maintainability of declaratory suits to establish title to evacuee lands abandoned in India by a refugee claiming to own such lands was considered at some length by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others and it was held that the provisions of the Rehabilitation Laws, by necessary intendment, exclude the civil Courts' jurisdiction to entertain declaratory suits of this kind, and it was further stated that 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 was further observed that the Rehabilitation Authorities possessed the necessary powers to hold inquiries into claims made by refugees and to decide all questions of inheritance, in accordance with the instructions issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands).

6. The view expressed by the learned District Judge that the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case just cited is no longer applicable in view of the acquisition of the property in dispute under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, does not appear to me to be correct for, in the first place as already stated, the land continued to be held by the deceased under the terms of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and, therefore, the acquisition of the land did not make any differ ence in the rights enjoyed by the deceased which alone were heritable at the time of his death. Secondly, as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Ramzan v. Rehabilitation Commissioner (Legal) Sargodha and another, land acquired by Government under section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act,. 1958, continues for purposes of the Act to carry the label of "evacuee property" even after acquisition, as much as it did before the acquisition, wit the result that it would continue to be immune from the jurisdiction of the civil Courts in view of provisions contained to section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, although it may be stated that those provisions are not directly relevant in the present context. Finally, even under section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is barred in respect of an matter which the Central Government or an officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and no injunction or 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." As the rights of ownership had not yet been conferred on the deceased Abdul Aziz, the property continued to be subject to the jurisdiction of officers appointed to deal with it under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

7. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the declaratory suit filed by the plaintiff‑respondent was not main tainable in the civil Court and his plaint had been rightly returned by the learned trial Judge. On this view of the matter, the appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted. The order of the learned District Judge is set aside and that of the learned trial Judge is restored. In view, however, of the legal questions involved, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal accepted.