MESSRS UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus MESSRS ALI OIL MILLS

Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents in ~ spite of P.CA.D therefore, they are hereby proceeded against ex parte.

2. This revision petition filed by the plaintiff has arisen from a declaratory suit in which he challenged notice, dated 27-3-1969 issued by the Settlement Department raising demand of Rs.10,540 as remaining price of the property in dispute and consequential order, dated 16-5-1969 for cancellation of the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner. The suit was contested by the respondents. The learned trial Court framed the following issues which reflect the controversies arising from the pleadings of the parties.

(1) Whether the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to try this case? O.P.P.

(2) Whether this suit is barred under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Reh:) Act, 1958 and section 56 of the Specific Relief Act? O.P.D.

(3) Whether the impugned demand notice, dated 27-2-1969 and the order of cancellation dated 16-6-1969 are illegal, void and without lawful authority as contended in paragraph No.II of the plaintiff? If so, to what effect? O.P:P.

(4) Relief.

3. It has been held under issues Nos. 1 and 2 that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. In view of these findings having been recorded it was held that the determination of Issue No.3 was not called for. The suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction through judgment, dated 19-6-1975. This was assailed by the petitioner by filing appeal before the learned Additional District Judge which has been dismissed through judgment, dated 10-7-1980 after upholding the findings of the learned trial Court on Issues 1 and 2.

4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the legality of impugned notice, dated 27-3-1969 raising a demand of Rs.10,540 on account of price of the property and cancellation of transfer of the property in favour of the petitioner through order, dated 16-5-1969 for the reason that the petitioner committed default in the payment of the said price was challenged on the ground that the same was not permitted under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 therefore the Settlement Authorities acted without jurisdiction and authority under the said Act regarding which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit and adjudicate upon the question of jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities to proceed with the matter was not barred.

5. The argument has force. It is well settled law that the authorities acting under a statute if do not act within the scope of the statute itself conferring jurisdiction on them under specified conditions, their acts can be challenged before the. Civil Court of general jurisdiction on the ground that the proceedings initiated by such authorities under the law under which they were acting do not fall within the ambit of such law.

6. The case of the petitioner was that he purchased the property in dispute in open auction and offered the highest bid. According to him he paid the entire price offered by him and he was issued a P.T.O. No amount according to him was due from. him on account of the price of property as offered by him in the auction therefore, the demand of an amount of Rs.10,540 through impugned notice, dated 27-3-1969 was not permissible under the Settlement Laws as such for non-compliance with the said demand the transfer of property in his name could not be cancelled through order, dated 16-5-1969. According to him the proceedings were initiated without jurisdiction which were not permissible under the law.

7. The notice, dated ` 27-3-1969 purported to have been issued under paragraph No.22 of the Scheme No.1which is applicable where a property was transferred to an occupant on the basis of his C.H. or N.C.H. Form and not through auction. Under Scheme No.1, the transferees were allowed facility of making the payment of transferred price through instalments which were to be indicated by the authorities in the document known as appendix which was to be issued to the transferee. The case of the petitioner was that the proceedings initiated under the said scheme were coram non judice as no further demand could be raised against him for payment of any amount in addition to the amount offered by the petitioner as highest bid which he has already paid. The Civil Courts had the jurisdiction to determine whether the Settlement Authorities while issuing the impugned notice for payment of any amount as price in excess of the amount offered by the petitioner as highest bid, were acting within the scope of the law and are empowered to raise the impugned demand.

8. The view taken by the two Courts below has resulted in declining and failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court to entertain the suit and decide the same.

9. The findings recorded by the two Courts below on issues 1 and 2 are C not sustainable. This revision petition is accepted. The judgments and decrees, dated 19-6-1975 and 10-7-1980 respectively passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

A.A./S-70/L Revision accepted.