Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Civil Court Jurisdiction Barred in Evacuee Property Dispute; Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 46 of 1950 Act

Case Name: Raghubir and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026

Citation: RSA-573-1993

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that civil courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to whether a property is or is not evacuee property in view of the express bar contained in Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. The Court held that once the nature of the property as evacuee property is in issue, the civil suit itself is not maintainable.

Summary: The second appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.02.1990 of the Sub-Judge, First Class, Bhiwani, whereby the appellants’ suit was dismissed. The appellants had filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and possession over the suit land, asserting that the property stood redeemed and was not evacuee property.

The appellants contended that the land had been mortgaged to Didar Singh, who migrated to Pakistan in 1945, and that being a usufructuary mortgage, there was no limitation period for redemption. It was argued that the Custodian had no authority to declare the appellants divested of ownership merely due to non-redemption, and therefore, the civil suit was maintainable.

The respondents opposed the appeal, contending that the land had been treated as evacuee property and subsequently allotted to respondent No.3. It was argued that in terms of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, jurisdiction of the civil court was expressly barred.

The High Court examined Section 46 of the 1950 Act and held that the provision categorically bars civil courts from entertaining or adjudicating upon any question as to whether a property is or is not evacuee property. The Court observed that the appellants consistently maintained that the land was not evacuee property, whereas the respondents had declared and treated it as such and allotted it accordingly. Determination of the nature of the property was therefore central to the dispute.

The Court held that such a question squarely fell within the statutory bar under Section 46, and therefore, the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In view of this jurisdictional bar, the Court found no merit in the appeal.

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the dismissal of the civil suit on the ground that jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950.