RSA No.2663 of 1988 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2663 of 1988 Harchand Singh & Ors. ...Appellants v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: November 25, 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the appellants. Shri Palvinder Singh, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punaj, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Naghaya Singh and his son Harchand Singh, plaintiff- appellants instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of the Collector, dated 7th September, 1976, affirmed by the Commissioner of Patiala Division, Patiala in appeal on 24th September, 1980 and in revision by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab on 29th September, 1981, whereby 1/4th share of suit land, description of which is given in the head note of the plaint, has been ordered to be transferred in favour of defendant Babu Singh are illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiffs is that there is a nazool land situated in village Rajindergarh, description and details of which was given in the body of the plaint. It was RSA No.2663 of 1988 -: 2 :- pleaded that nazool land was to be transferred to the plaintiffs who were lesees over the land. One fourth share of the land was transferred in favour of one Babu Singh, who was ex-serviceman. It was pleaded that son of Harchand Singh was also serving in the Army and being an ex-serviceman, the land should have been allowed in his name. The order passed by the Collector was challenged by the plaintiff in revision and appeal. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner had dismissed the revision and the appeal. It is admitted fact that Naghaya Singh had earlier filed suit against the State of Punjab, Tehsildar Sirhind and Babu Singh respondent. Vide judgment dated25.7.1978, the same was dismissed and vide Ex.D1, the appeal was dismissed on 29.9.1979. A perusal of Ex.D1 reveals that it was specifically held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. A finding was given by the Civil Court that it has no jurisdiction to try the second suit on the same cause of action. The finding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, had attained finality. No substantial questions of law have been formulated or urged by the appellants. No interference is called for in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 25, 2010. Judge kadyan