Listen To This Post

Chandigarh:  Bringing closure to litigation that spanned over three decades, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction to decide whether a property is evacuee property, reaffirming the statutory bar under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.

The ruling came as Justice Jagmohan Bansal dismissed a second appeal pending since 1993, arising from a dispute over land mortgaged before the Partition of India. The original civil suit had been filed before a court in Bhiwani, Haryana.

The appellants had sought a declaration claiming ownership and possession of the property, arguing that they had mortgaged the land to an individual who migrated to Pakistan in 1945. Their counsel contended that, as a usufructuary mortgage, the appellants retained the right to redeem the land at any time.

However, the respondents maintained that the land had already been declared evacuee property and was subsequently allotted under statutory provisions. They argued that the civil suit itself was barred under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which expressly excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to the determination of evacuee property.

The trial court (1990) and the first appellate court (1992) had both dismissed the suit, prompting the appellants to approach the High Court. In line with the concurrent findings, Justice Bansal ruled that Section 46 clearly bars civil courts from adjudicating questions relating to the nature or status of evacuee property. “It is evident that a civil court has no jurisdiction to decide whether a particular property is evacuee property or not. The State of Haryana and other respondents declared and treated the property in question as evacuee property and further allotted it. The appellants were always of the opinion that it was not evacuee property. The question of the nature of property was involved, which could not be adjudicated by a civil court,” the judge observed.

Dismissing the appeal, the court held that once property has been declared evacuee under the Act, its character cannot be questioned through ordinary civil litigation, irrespective of the age of the dispute or the private claims involved. The judgment assumes significance as it reiterates that Partition-era property disputes falling within the purview of the evacuee-property legislation cannot be reopened through civil suits decades later, and that statutory remedies alone govern such matters.