DALIP CHAND AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 192 · Decided: 06-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DALIP CHAND AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 
B 
(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-
F 
lants were shown as mortgagees and cancelled the allotment of land made 
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. 
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. 
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 
D 
E 
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 considera

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.