RSA No.2394/1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2394/1986 DATE OF DECISION: 21 .7.2008 Dr. Dhian Singh ....Appellant through Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate Versus State of Punjab and Another .....Respondent through Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .-.-.-. JASWANT SINGH, J Present Regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1984 passed by Sub Judge, III Class, Patiala dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, was dismissed. Broadly, the facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner of property No.EP-381, situated at Samana, District Patiala, the boundaries whereof are described in the head note of the plaint. It was further averred that conveyance deed (sale deed) Ex.P1/A had been executed in favour of the plaintiff by the Rehabilitation Department, Punjab and the boundaries have been wrongly mentioned in the said conveyance deed. Plaintiff moved applications dated 23.7.1977 and RSA No.2394/1986 -2- 18.8.1978 for correction of the boundaries in the said conveyance deed. Rehabilitation Authorities called the report of the Inspector regarding property in dispute but the plaintiff was not satisfied with the appointment of the Inspector and he applied to the Managing Officer for appointment of Tehsildar (Sales), Rehabilitation Department for the said purpose. In this regard, further reminders were also issued but of no avail, therefore, present suit for declaration was filed to the effect that the boundaries in the said conveyance deed have been wrongly mentioned as towards the East, open space has been mentioned whereas on the eastern side, there is property No.E.P. 380 of Partap Singh. Defendants despite due notice failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte. After hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and the law point raised, the learned trial Court found that the present case pertained to the rectification of the boundaries as originally mentioned in the conveyance deed and, therefore, the remedy of correction of the same was available to him under Section 25(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as “1954 Act”). Learned Trial Court further found that in view of Section 36 of 1954 Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit was barred and accordingly, it was observed that the plaintiff should approach the Rehabilitation Department for rectification of the boundaries. Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala by the plaintiff but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.1986. It is, in these circumstances, that the present regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. Present appeal was admitted vide order dated 16.2.1987. Following substantial questions of law have been framed in the present regular second appeal: i) As to whether the suit can be said to be barred by virtue of Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 in the absence of remedy under the said Act for the relief claimed in the suit? ii) As to whether the Civil Court has failed to exercise the RSA No.2394/1986 -3- jurisdiction vested in it? Iii) As to whether the judgments and decree under appeal are the result of misreading the relief prayed for in the suit and further misinterpreting the provisions of the Act and being so are thus unsustainable in law? iv) As to whether the relief claimed in the suit can be granted under the Displaced Persons ( Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954? Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant argued that in the facts of the present case, no remedy was available to the plaintiff under 1954 Act and therefore, Section 36 of 1954 Act was not applicable and hence the suit was maintainable. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court rendered in Tek Chand Chitkaria v. Union of India, 1968, PLR, Volume LXX, 2002, judgment, Vishnu Dass and another v. Smt Jaisi Bai Ude Bhan, AIR 1972, P & H, 811. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff in open auction from the Rehabilitation Department and accordingly the conveyance deed had been executed and since the primary and sole relief claimed is for correction of the boundaries in the said conveyance deed, no suit is maintainable before a Civil court in view of the bar provided under Section 36 of 1954 Act as there is a sufficient remedy available to the plaintiff under Section 25 (2) of 1954 Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before adverting to the arguments, it is necessary to reproduce Section 25 (2) and 36 of 1954 Act, which is as under: 25. Review and amendment of orders- (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xx (2) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in order passed by an officer or authority under this Act or errors arising thereto from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time be corrected by such officer or authority or the successor-in-office of such officer or authority. 36. Bar of jurisdiction- Save as otherwiseexpressly RSA No.2394/1986 -4- provided in this Act, no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Central Government or any officer or authority appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine, and 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. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit land was sold to the plaintiff-appellant by the Rehabilitation Department for a sale consideration of Rs.9150/- vide conveyance deed No.678 dated 4.8.1997 in a open auction. Sale deed was written on 30.6.1977 and was duly registered on 4.8.1977 Ex.P1/A. It appears that the plaintiff had sought rectification of the same before and after the execution of the conveyance deed. It is not in dispute that the Rehabilitation Authorities called the report of the Inspector and Managing Officer regarding the boundaries of the property in dispute on one of the applications moved by the plaintiff, but he was not satisfied with the appointment of the Inspector and, therefore, he applied for appointment of Tehsildar, Rehabilitation Department for the said purpose. Admittedly, reminders had been sent in January 1982 before filing of the present suit. Both the learned courts below, keeping in view of the facts of the case and nature of the relief claimed by the petitioner, recorded a finding that the present case pertains to the rectification of the boundaries as originally mentioned in the aforesaid conveyance deed and, therefore, keeping in view the bar under Section 36 of 1954 Act, learned courts below refused to entertain the suit and further recorded the plaintiff to avail his remedy under Section 25(2) of 1954 Act. In Vishnu Dass's case (supra), the question was as to whether the land left by the defendant in Pakistan was mortgaged by him to the plaintiff and whether on that basis, the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession of land allotted to the defendant in India. It was held that the matter was not covered under any of the Sections of 1954 Act and, therefore, a civil suit for that matter was not barred under 1954 Act and hence maintainable in a Civil Court. The facts in the present case are entirely different. The land was sold by the Rehabilitation Department to the plaintiff and a conveyance RSA No.2394/1986 -5- deed executed. The plaintiff not being satisfied with the boundaries drawn in the sale deed has clear cut remedy under Section 25(2) of 1954 Act for correction of the same, therefore, the cited judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner. The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Tek Chand Chitkaria's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to the reason that in the reported case suit for possession of a cattle shed and boundary attached thereto forming part of khasra nos. 160,161,163, was filed on the ground that representation of the plaintiff Tek Chand Chitkaria regarding non-delivery of possession was rejected by Regional Settlement Commissioner on 21.1.1958. Appeal, revision and review filed against the same under the 1954 Act were also dismissed. Even the writ petition challenging all the said orders was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. It is in those circumstances, the civil suit was filed. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraph 23 of the judgment has also discussed the point of bar of jurisdiction under section 36 of the 1954 Act and has held that in the facts of the case there is no provision in the Act, which empowers the Central Government or any officer under the said Act to determine the matter in controversy. In the present case to resolve the controversy in the suit regarding correction of boundaries, there is a specific provision in Section 25(2) of the 1954 Act. Therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 36 of the 1954 Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. Moreover, liberty was granted to the plaintiff-appellant by the trial court to approach higher officers of the Rehabilitation Department in case of any grievance qua rectification of the boundaries of the suit land, which he had purchased from the Rehabilitation Department itself. However, the plaintiff-appellant has not taken recourse to that option. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the submission of the plaintiff-appellant that the civil suit under Section 36 is not barred in the absence of any remedy under the Act, is not tenable as there is a specific remedy available under Section 25(2) of the 1954 Act for correction of the boundaries. In view of the findings recorded on point no.1, learned trial Court has rightly declined to interfere in the matter and has granted liberty to the RSA No.2394/1986 -6- plaintiff to approach the authorities under the 1954 Act. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the present Regular Second Appeal as no substantial question of law is involved. Hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21.7.2008. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge.