JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J. 1. The petitioner is a Trust which manages various properties of Ahmadia Muslims. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 06.06.1995 (Annexure P-14) whereby the petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 filed by the petitioner challenging the allotment of land in dispute in favour of respondents No. 2 to 10 (predecessor-in-Interest of Subedar Ram Singh) was rejected, thereby upholding the orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Settlement Commissioner and the Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer. The case set up by the petitioner is that on partition of the country the entire land of Village Qadian was initially held to have vested in the Custodian General of India under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. However, since an overwhelming proportion of the said land was owned by Ahmadia Muslims who never migrated to Pakistan, the said land was restored to the original owners. As regards the petitioner, the order of restoration was passed on 07.03.1959 and as per the petitioner property in dispute was mentioned at Sr. No. 16 as follows:-- Piece of land measuring 50 kanals with a number of shops built over it, situated at Qadian (called Ratti Chhalla area). 2. Further as per the petitioner, the entire Abadi of Village Qadian had been given one number i.e. 91 as was customary and the property at Sr. No. 16 could only have been described in that manner since it was part of Khasra No. 91. 3. However, before this release order was passed, one Subedar Ram Singh who was also a displaced person took possession of the property in dispute as a lessee of the Custodian General. Consequent to the release order the Custodian General directed Subedar Ram Singh to attorn in favour of the petitioner by way of letter dated 22.06.1960 (Annexure P-2) pursuant to which the said Subedar Ram Singh executed lease deed dated 21.02.1964 (Annexure P-3/A) wherein he mentioned as follows:-- Whereas I have shops No. B-III-141 & B-III-141/A, situated in 'Ratti Chhalla' at the Railway Road in which I have installed a 'weighing- bridge' for weighing the weight of bullock-carts carrying fodder and wood and do my business. Now this premises have been restored in favour of Sadr. Anjuman Ahmadia by the Custodian Department. Presently I have transacted rent relating to these two premises with the Manager Properties, Sadr. Now this premises have been restored in favour of Sadr. Anjuman Ahmadia by the Custodian Department. Presently I have transacted rent relating to these two premises with the Manager Properties, Sadr. Anjuman Ahmadia Qadian at the rate of Rs.4/- per month. 4. Thereafter, however taking advantage to the fact that the entire Khasra No. 91 still stood in the revenue record in the name of the Central Government, Subedar Ram Singh moved an application for transferring the said property to his name notwithstanding the lease deed he had entered into. In that application he did not disclose the fact that he had entered into a lease deed with the petitioner nor impleaded the petitioner as a party. During the pendency of the said application, he first filed a civil suit for declaration on 21.11.1976 claiming that the property in dispute was Government Evacuee land and the lease deed executed by him was void and illegal since it had been got executed by him by practicing fraud and misrepresentation. The Civil Court inter-alia framed the following issues:-- 1. Whether plot in dispute ABCD is Government Evacuee property and is part of land measuring 3 kanals 15 marlas bearing khasra No. 91/1? OPP. 2. Whether lease rights of defendant are liable to be cancelled being impugned rent note dated 21.2.64 illegal and void? OPP. 5. The Civil Court held both these issues in favour of the petitioner by judgment and order dated 21.02.1981. Immediately after having filed this suit Subedar Ram Singh filed another suit dated 19.02.1977 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from dispossessing him except in due course of law. In this case the Civil Court inter-alia framed the following issues:-- 1. Whether Khasra No. 91R/1 is the property of the Central Government? OPP. 2. Whether the site in dispute marked ABCDEFGH in the plaint is the part of khasra No. 91R/1? OPP. 5. Whether the property in dispute forms a part of Ratti Chhalla Area. If so, to what effect? OPP. 6. Whether Ratti Chhalla area is the ownership of the defendant? OPP. 6. The Civil Court held these issues in favour of the petitioner and against Subedar Ram Singh by judgment and order dated 03.01.1979. However, during the pendency of these suits the property in dispute was transferred to the said Subedar Ram Singh. Those proceedings having gone against the petitioner it is before this Court. 7. OPP. 6. The Civil Court held these issues in favour of the petitioner and against Subedar Ram Singh by judgment and order dated 03.01.1979. However, during the pendency of these suits the property in dispute was transferred to the said Subedar Ram Singh. Those proceedings having gone against the petitioner it is before this Court. 7. The case of the respondents No. 2 to 11 (successor-in-interest of Subedar Ram Singh) is that the petitioner having not challenged the vesting of the property in dispute in favour of the Central Government can not now be heard to urge anything against the transfer in favour of their predecessor. 8. In this connection, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is not a case where this particular property was ever declared to have vested in the Custodian General but, as mentioned above the entire Abadi of Village Qadian which was given one khasra number viz., khasra No. 91 comprising of 450 kanals & 7 marlas of land had been transferred in the name of the Central Government and thereafter various Ahmadia Muslims as well as the petitioner-Trust had moved separate applications for release of the land and this is why the land was released by order dated 07.03.1959 (Annexure P-1). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that after Subedar Ram Singh reneged on his solemn contract i.e. the lease deed, the petitioner applied for mutation of the land in dispute by giving it a separate khasra number and in the presence of respondent No. 4-Daljit Singh and notwithstanding his opposition separate khasra No. 91/1 was given to this number and mutation dated 23.01.1981 (Annexure P-8) was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 11 has argued that the petitioner had itself filed a revision petition against the action of the respondent No. 1 treating the land in dispute to be the property of the Central Government but the same was dismissed and the petitioner permitted that order to become final. He has further argued that the findings of the Civil Courts would have no applicability in view of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and in this connection he has referred two judgments. He has further argued that the findings of the Civil Courts would have no applicability in view of Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and in this connection he has referred two judgments. First judgment is Custodian Evacuee Property, Punjab and others v. Jafran Begum, AIR 1968 (SC) 169 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-- 7... A bare reading of Section 46 shows how widely it is worded and how, clearly it bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in matters specified therein. A perusal of these provisions in our opinion shows that the Act is a complete code in itself in the matter of dealing with evacuee property. As observed by this Court in Ram Gopal Reddy v. Additional Custodian, 1966 (30) S.C.R. 214, "the Act thus provides a complete machinery for a person interested in any property to put forward his claims before the authorities competent to deal with the question and to go in appeal and in revision if the person interested feels aggrieved. Having provided this complete machinery for adjudication of all claims with respect to evacuee property, the Act, by Section 46, bars the jurisdiction of civil or revenue courts to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any property or any right to or interest in any property is or is not evacuee property". 10. Second judgment is Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma v. Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1962 (SC) 1616 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-- 4...It was open to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Custodian-General, New Delhi by moving the appropriate High Court in respect thereof; it was also open to the petitioner to move this Court by way of special leave against the decision of the Custodian-General or of the other appropriate authorities under the Act. The petitioner did not, however, choose to do so. The result, therefore, is that the order of the Custodian-General has become final. 11. Consequently, as per the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 11 the petitioner is estopped from challenging or calling into the question of allotment and transfer of the land in dispute in favour of Subedar Ram Singh. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that proceeding (Annexure P-7) would not determine this case. 11. Consequently, as per the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 11 the petitioner is estopped from challenging or calling into the question of allotment and transfer of the land in dispute in favour of Subedar Ram Singh. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that proceeding (Annexure P-7) would not determine this case. Even that revision as per the learned senior counsel was dismissed not on the ground that the land in dispute did not form part of the released property but on the ground that if the description of the property was not clearly mentioned in the release order the petitioner should have approached the Issuing authority for allowing correction and consequently revision petition was not maintainable. As per the learned senior counsel the only issue in the present case was and is whether the land in dispute was part of the area known as Ratti Challa. As per him, had there been a specific order whereby the land in dispute was directed to have vested in the Central Government of course the petitioner would have had to file a revision against it. But fact in the present case was that by one stroke of pen 450 kanals 7 marlas of land bearing khasra No. 91 was transferred in the name of the Central Government and thereafter almost all of it was released. As per the learned senior counsel, the findings in the order of the Assistant Custodian General (Annexure P-7) that the petitioner should have sought clarification/correction was neither here nor there because no other correction could have been made. Had there been an individual khasra number of this land, then of course the same could have been done. As regards the argument regarding Civil Courts, the learned senior counsel has argued that in the first suit issue No. 2 and in the second suit issue No. 5 are to the following effect:-- 2. Whether lease rights of defendant are liable to be cancelled being impugned rent note dated 21.2.64 illegal and void? OPP. 5. Whether the property in dispute forms a part of Ratti Challa Area. If so, to what effect? OPP. 13. As per the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, there can be no bar for filing a civil suit for these issues. OPP. 5. Whether the property in dispute forms a part of Ratti Challa Area. If so, to what effect? OPP. 13. As per the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, there can be no bar for filing a civil suit for these issues. He has further argued that Subedar Ram Singh having himself described the property in dispute as being part of Ratti Challa and thereafter having moved an application for transfer without disclosing the above facts had acted dishonestly and the writ Court will not permit him to profit from this blatant dishonesty. 14. I find weight in the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 11 and the learned Deputy Advocate General are not in a position to deny the fact that Civil Court was competent to have given findings on the above mentioned issues No. 2 & 5. No doubt the Civil Court could not have opined upon vesting of the property or the allotment or transfer but there is no bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to the said issues since they do not relate to those questions. It may be mentioned here that there is not a single order on the file of any authority under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 or the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which has given a finding that the land in dispute does not fall in Ratti Challa. The order dated 06.11.1978 (Annexure P-7) would not be determinative because even that has been passed on the basis that the revision was not maintainable, which was the correct position in law. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above would not help the case of the respondents. As regards the case of Custodian Evacuee Property, Punjab (supra), the reliance placed on the judgment of the Civil Court is only with regard to the issue which could well be decided by the Civil Court. As regards the case of Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma (supra), the petitioner has challenged the orders of transfer in favour of the respondents and therefore it cannot be held that any order has become final. 15. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. As regards the case of Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma (supra), the petitioner has challenged the orders of transfer in favour of the respondents and therefore it cannot be held that any order has become final. 15. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the transfer of the land in dispute in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 2 to 11 are set aside. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.