The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954
Section 27. Finality of Orders
Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by any officer or authority under this Act, including a managing corporation, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings.
Section ” 27- SYNOPSIS
1.Finality
2.Jurisdiction
COMMENTARY
1.Finality–This section confers finality to an order made by an officer or authority acting under this Act. This cannot be challenged in any civil court. AIR 1961 Bombay 69.
2.Jurisdiction–An order was passed by the Managing Officer under Section 19. It could be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 22. The appeal was competent before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This was not resorted to. However, an appeal was preferred to the Additional Custodian of Property and further revision was preferred to the Deputy Custodian General who had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was held that the order of the Managing Officer became final under section 27. 1961 PLR 420.
Civil Courts jurisdiction is barred whenever remedy is provided under a special provision. 1982 LLR 414.
However, if the authorities under the Act, without jurisdiction then the bar would not be attracted 1982 LLR 450.
A decision given by the authorities that the plaintiff had entered into lease of evacuee property and that certain amounts was due from him under the lease cannot be called in question in a Civil Court. 1969 PLR 49.
As the Settlement Commissioner is competent to determine the liability of a person arising out of a lease of evacuee land, consequently no action would be maintainable in a Civil Court. AIR 1968 Punjab 40.
However, this Act does not empower any authority to determine finally the question of title to property left behind in Pakistan. 1966 Cur, LJ 794.
A policy decision was taken by the Punjab Government to sell land to lessees from Muslim Evacuees. The request to enforce policy decision and to purchase the land was turned down by the Government. The land ceased to form part of the compensation poll. It was held that the Civil Court could entertain a dispute AIR 1963 Pb. 405.
The finality attached under Section 27 does not bar the Chief Settlement Commissioner from re-opening a matter under Section 24. ILR 1969 (1) Pb. 554.
Such a bar may also not operate where the property has never been declared as an evacuee property. AIR 1980 SC 1906.
Section 27 would bar a suit where a sale of property forming part of compensation pool is sought to be challenged on the ground that the sale was collusive or that it was not properly published. AIR 1974 Delhi 151.
A Settlement Commissioner did not comply with statutory obligation under Rule 90(12) to make adjustment out of a compensation towards the balance of payment of price due in respect of property sold by auction. It was held that the jurisdiction is not barred. ILR 1972 (1) Delhi 663.
The Central Government has no power to acquire property which is not evacuee property. In any case it has no power to acquire property which has not been declared an evacuee property. Accordingly it was held that a suit filed under the Treasury Act for its possession would be maintainable. 1976 All LJ 190.
Where an allotment was cancelled by the Managing Officer then the Civil Court would not have any jurisdiction in the matter. 1972 PLR 381.
–Section 27,22,23,24 and 25 Sec
tion 27 specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil courts for challenging cancellation orders passed under this Act S.25 provides that setting aside of ex parte orders is not a review of orders. 1991(1) All India Land Laws Reporter 418
The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,1954
