Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a civil suit challenging cancellation of a restricted land sale and claiming protected ownership as subsequent purchasers. The competent authority’s order followed an opportunity of hearing and had attained finality; the statutory civil-jurisdiction bar applied. The High Court also failed to address the absence of mandatory notice to the State or leave to sue without it.
Issues
- Whether the civil court could examine the final cancellation order despite the statutory jurisdiction bar.
- Whether the suit could stand without the required notice to the State or leave under section 80(2) CPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 16, Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976The statutory finality and civil-jurisdiction bar prevented the challenge to the authority’s final order on these facts. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Section 80(1) and (2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908No requisite notice had been issued to the State and its authorities, and no leave to dispense with notice was shown; the High Court did not address that independent maintainability finding. (¶¶ 6, 13)
Held
- The cancellation order had been passed after the opportunity directed in the earlier writ proceedings and had attained finality. In view of section 16, the civil court could not adjudicate its validity on this record. (¶¶ 4, 12, 13)
- The precedent concerning a nullity could not assist without a finding that the authority’s order was a nullity. The hearing opportunity and finality distinguished the present challenge. (¶ 13)
- The lower appellate court’s finding concerning absence of section 80 notice and leave remained unaddressed by the High Court. That omission additionally undermined restoration of the trial decree. (¶¶ 6, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment in RSA No.1163 of 1991 set aside and Civil Suit No.496 of 1985 dismissed. No costs.