CIVIL REVISION NO.6800 OF 2005 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 23, 2008 Surinder Pal Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS Central Govt. of India and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate for Mr. L. M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, claiming themselves to be tenants in the shop bearing No.125 situated in Dhandia Dogra Building, G.T. Road, Opposite Railway Station, Amritsar, have filed a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction by alleging that they are under threat of forcible dispossession from the shops. The petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for restraining the defendant Union of India and another from dispossessing the petitioners forcibly during the pendency of the suit. CIVIL REVISION NO.6800 OF 2005 :{ 2 }: Averment would show that these shops originally belonged to Sukhdev Raj @ Sukhi who is alleged to be a smuggler. His property was confiscated by the Government order passed in September 1994 under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Forfeiture of Property Act, 1976 (for short, “the Act”). It is further alleged that in the year 1996, Tehsildar Amritsar told the petitioners to either vacate these shops or pay the rent to the Central Government as it had now become owners of these shops. Reference is also made to one Kabuliatnama which was got signed from the petitioners on 19.6.1996 and it is claimed that since then the petitioners are paying rent regularly to Tehsildar (Sales), Amritsar, against receipts. It is then disclosed that defendant Union of India is now wanting to sell the property by way of public auction and as such, is advancing threats to the petitioners to vacate the shops as otherwise they are being threatened to be dispossessed forcibly and illegally with the police help. On a notice being issued, the defendants have filed a reply inter-alia stating that the suit is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law. It is then stated that there is cause of action for the petitioners to file suit and jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such a suit, is also barred. Plea further is that District Collector is authorized to collect charges for use of the property by the petitioner-tenants till the same is put to public auction. The prayer of the petitioners for grant of interim injunction was declined by the Trial Court. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal and as such, the petitioners are in a revision before this CIVIL REVISION NO.6800 OF 2005 :{ 3 }: Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would primarily submit that the rights of the petitioners as tenants can not be allowed to be prejudiced even if the property is now in the ownership of Union of India. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioners can not be forcibly dispossessed or through any other unlawful means and this aspect has not been properly considered by the Courts while declining the prayer of the petitioners for interim injunction. No one has come present to represent the Union of India. The Appellate Court, by referring to Section 14 of the Act, has held that no injunction can be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. It is not disputed before me that the Central Government has acquired the ownership of this property through confiscation. Section 14 of the Act apparently provide a clear bar for the Civil Court to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Appellate Tribunal or any competent authority is empowered by or under this Act to determine. It is further provided that no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. The submission of the petitioners, however, is that Section 14 of the Act would not effect their rights as tenants and as such, the dismissal of their appeal on the basis of this provision can not be justified. CIVIL REVISION NO.6800 OF 2005 :{ 4 }: The petitioners apparently are changing their stance a bit before this Court from the one they had earlier pleaded before the Appellate Court. There the petitioners had pleaded that they would not create any hindrance in disposal of the property but were seeking protection of their possession and their rights to be treated as tenants even after disposal of the property. The Courts have rightly referred to the provisions of Section 7 (3) of the Act, which provides that where the competent authority records a finding under this Section to the effect that any property is illegally acquired property, it shall declare that such property subject to the provisions of the Act, stands forfeited to the Central Government free from all “encumbrances” (emphasis supplied). Since the petitioners are not disputing that the property has been forfeited to the Central Government, they would not be able to contest that by operation of law, this property would vest in Government free from encumbrances. The rights of the petitioners to remain in this property as tenants in view of this special provision would not remain fully intact and are required to be determined in light of the legal provisions of the Act, which is special legislation. Besides, nothing is substantiated from the record, which would show that any action is being taken by the Central Government to forcibly dispossess the petitioners. The provision of Section 14 of the Act can not be ignored which would govern the rights of the petitioners to maintain the suit. The petitioners are not seeking protection of their rights as tenants but have filed a civil suit, seeking mandatory and permanent injunction wherein as an interim measure, prayer for stay of their CIVIL REVISION NO.6800 OF 2005 :{ 5 }: dispossession is made. Filing of such a suit is clearly barred in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for interim injunction has rightly been declined and would not call for any interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. April 23, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE