The High Court dismissed the appeal against lower courts' findings that civil court jurisdiction is barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons Act and that an alternative remedy exists under Section 24(4).
Appeal dismissed with liberty to avail alternative remedy and to count time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA 596 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA 596 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.4.2012
Mohan Lal and another
.. petitioner
vs
State of Haryana & another
... respondent
Present: Mr. As Tewatia, Advocate.
M.M.S. BEDI,J.
The plaintiff-appellants had filed a suit for declaration that order dated 7.9.2001 passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and mutation dated 30.10.2001, on the basis of the said order, were illegal null and void. The trial court, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 ( for short 'the Act'), held that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred and that the plaintiff- appellants have got an alternative remedy u/s 24(4) of the said Act to file a revision petition before the Central Government. Though the order was passed by the trial court on26.11.2007, the plaintiff-appellants instead of filing the alternative remedy, filed an appeal, which has again been dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2010 upholding the findings of the trial court. Since both the courts have already held that the civil court will have no jurisdiction u/s 36 of the Act and the appropriate remedy would be u/s 24(4) of the Act, the plaintiff-appellants ought to have availed the alternative remedy to get the matter adjudicated upon in accordance with law. No ground is made out to interference in the
RSA 596 of 2011
-2-
concurrent finding of fact regarding the point of jurisdiction and the availability of the alternative remedy. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants to avail the alternative remedy, independent of the observations on merits made by the courts below. It will be open to the appellants to avail the benefit of provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act while availing the alternative remedy.
April 2 ,2012 TSM
( M.M.S. BEDI ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to declare orders under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 illegal.
Whether alternative remedy under Section 24(4) of the said Act is available to the appellants.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Lal and another
State of Haryana & another
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
