DALIP CHAND AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                           DALIP CHAND AND ORS.
                                      v.
                           UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.



B
                                SEPTEMBER 6, 1994

              (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]
                                                                                        ....
           Punjab Prohibition of Ownership & Transfer of Lands Act:

           Purchase of land from Non-Agriculturist Tribe-Area now forming part
C    of Pakistan-Mutation in favour of vendee-Subsequent notification declaring
     vendor as Agriculturist Tribe-Review of Mutation Proceedings-Migration to
     lndi~Allotment of lands in lieu of lands lost in Pakistan-Cancellation of
     land allotted-suit for declaration filed in a Court having Territorial Jurisdic-
     tion over land allotted-Held Civil Coun had jurisdiction to give declara-
     tion-Cancellation of land held unjustified.
Q
 (
         On March 12, 1928 the respondents' predecessor, a Non-Agricul-
  turist Tribe, sold certain lands • which now forms part of Pakistan • to the
  appellants. Thereafter, mutation was effected in favour of the appellants.
  Subsequently, the vendor's caste was notified as Agriculturists Tribe and
E proceedings were initiated for reviewing the mutation as owners and
  treating the appellants as mortgagees. In the meantime, the appellants
  migrated to India and settled down at Jullundhur. They were granted the
  suit lands in lieu of their lands lost in Pakistan. Thereafter, the rehabilita-
  tion authorities secured mutation records from Pakistan wherein appel-
  lants were shown as mortgagees and cancelled the allotment of land made
F in favour of the appellants. The appellants filed a declaratory suit and the
  Sub-Judge, Jullundhur decl~red that the appellants were the owners of the
  lands in Pakistan and in lieu of that lost lands suit lands were allotted
  to them for rehabilitation. A permanent injunction restraining the respon-
  dents from dispossessing the appellants from the suit lands was also
G issued. The first appellate Court reversed the decree of the Trial Court
  and on .second appeal the order of the Appellate Court was confirmed. The
  appellants filed appeal in this Court.

           Allowing the appeal, this Court

H          HELD : The District Court and the High Court were palpably wrong
                                       192
                          DALlPCHANDv. U.0.1.                             193

in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction for the obvious reason       A
that the appellants are not claiming any declaration of their ownership of
the lands in Pakistan. Allotment of suit lands were made for appellants,
rehabilitation in lieu oflands lost by them in Pakistan. Therefore, as owners
they are entitled to maintain the allotment. Since on the date of sale vendors
were non-agriculturists, the Punjab Prohibition of Ownership & Transfer          B
of Lands Act, is inapplicable. The subsequent notification that vendor's
caste is an agriculturists Tribe, did not have any retrospective effect on the
alienation made earlier. The subsequent mutation effected will not have any
effect on the character of the ownership of land held by the appellants. Since
the allotment initially was rightly made the authorities were not justified in
cancelling the allotment. Further the lands allotted to the appellants are       C
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court which rightly
gave the declaration prayed for. [194-F, G, H; 195-A-B-C]         ·

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 839 of
1984.
                                                                                 D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.83 of the Punjab & High
Court in R.S.A. No. 530 of 1975.

     Shrinath Singh and Pradeep Kumar for Mitter & Mitter Co. for the
Appellants.
                                                                                 E
        C.B. Balak and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      The whole case appears to have gone on a wrong track. This appeal
by Special Leave arises from the decree dated September 21, 1993 in              F
Regular Second Appeal No. 5'30n5 dismissing the second appeal of the
appellants and confirming the decree of the Additional District Judge,
Jullundhur in appeal No. 173n2. The Additional District Judge reversed
the decree of the Sub-Judge First Class, Jullundhur dated August 3, 1972
wherein the Sub-Judge had declared that. the appellants were the owners          G
of the lands in Pakistan and in lieu of their lands in Pakistan suit lands
were allotted to the appellants for rehabilitation and issued a permanent
injwiction restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants
from the suit lands.

        The facts are not in dispute. On March 12, 1928, 60 bighas of land       H
              \
    194                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A was sold bR_ Gajinder Singh Dhillon to Santa Singh and Bhagat Singh for
  valuable consideration of the land situated in the Village Sewai Tehsil
  Ahmedpur Distt\ Rahimpur Khan in Bahawalpur State which is a part of
   Pakistan. It is the case of the appellants that mutation was effected on
   February 17, 1932 in their favour. At the time of the sale Dhillon caste was
  non- agriculturists tribe. By notification dated May 9, 1931 the Government
B
   notified the Dhillon caste as an Agricultural Tribe. Thereafter, it would
   appear that proceedings ware initiated to review the mutation effected in
   favour of the appellants as owners and to treat them as mortgagees. Before
   mutation could be effected the appellants who had migrated from Pakistan
   to India and settled down at Jullundhur. In lieu of the land they. had lost
C in Pakistan, they has applied for and were granted the suit lands. The
   rehabilitation authorities are said to have secured the mutation records
   from Pakistan wherein it later on appeared to have been recorded that the
   appellants remained in those lands as mortgagees. Therefore, their allot-         (".

  ment came to be cancelled on July 3, 1961 which was challenged oy the
D appellants in various proceedings and ultimately in a writ· petition No.
  598/64 and the High Court held that since there is a disputed question of
  Jact, the appropriate course will be the civil suit. Accordingly the civil suit
  came to be filed and declaration was given by the civil cotirt which was
  reversed as narrated hereinbefore.

E          As regards the contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned
    admittedly they did not make any application before the competent
    authority for allotment of land in lieu of the lands they lost in Pakistan nor
    any allotment made in their favour more particularly in relation to the suit
    lands . These facts are not in dispute. The only question which ultimately
F arose and decided by the District Court and the High Court is whether the
    civil court had jurisdiction to give the declaration. The Distt. Court and the
    High Court were palpably wrong in holding that the Civil Court has no
    jurisdiction for the obvious reason that the appellants are not claiming any
    declaration of their ownership of the lands in Pakistan. What they had
  · claimed was that they had lost the land in Pakistan and in lieu thereof an
G allotment of suit lands were made for the rehabilitation by the first respon-
    dent and that, therefore, as owners they are entitled to maintain the
    allotment. The mutation proceedings secured from Pakistan would show
    that the respondents' prodecessors, namely, vendor-Gajinder Singh was an
    Agriculturist Tribe. The sale to the appellants by him was on March U,
H 1928 is not in dispute. On that date they were non-agriculturists and that,
                              DAIJP CHAND v. U.01.                           195

     therefore, the Punjab Prohition of Ownership & Transfer of Lands Act, is A
     inapplicable., The subsequent notification that Dhillon caste is an agricul·
     turist Tribe on May 9,1931 did not have any retrospective effect on the
     alienation made as early as March, 1928. In consequence the sale of the
.J
     lands by Gajinder Singh in favour of the appellants was valid When the
     sale is valid they were the owners of the land and since that land was lost B
     due to partition they rightly made an applica.tion for allotment in lieu of
     the lost land. The subsequent mutation effected will not have any effect on
     the character of the ownership of land held by the appellants in the year
     1928. Therefore, the allotment initially was rightly made. The authorities,
     therefore, were not justified in cancelling the allotment on July 3, 1961.
     Since the lands allotted to them are situated in Jullundhur Distt. within the C
     territorial jurisdic~on of the trial court, it is not in dispute that certainly
     the Civil Court can go into and in fact the trial court had gone into that
     aspect of the matter and given the declaration as prayed for. The Distt.
     CoUrt and the High Court, therefore, have committed grievous error in
     holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and the finding that the D
     appellants are only mortgagees, is also illegal in view of the fact we have
     stated.
            Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the
     High Court and the District Court are set aside and that of the trial court
     is confirmed but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own   E
     costs.

     T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.