' The land in dispute measuring 1,200 kanals situated Mankera Bhakkar was transferred by the respondent appellant under the Tube-well scheme. Pursuant to the terms and conditions, the appellant was said to have deposited the necessary expenses for the trial-boring, but instead of complying with its part of the contract the respondent had cancelled the allotment. The appellant therefore filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession of the land.
2. The suit was filed on 10th July, 1975. The trial Court, without inviting written statement from the respondent, without framing issues and without affording an opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence, had dismissed the suit on the ground that by virtue of section 74-A added by the That Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (XIX of 1975) it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The appellant made an appeal to the District Judge but with no success. Therefore this appeal.
3. Ordinance XIX of 1975 came into force on 6th June, 1975 by which section 74-A was added to the That Development Act, 1949 (Punjab Act XV of 1949) barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in any matter which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose of. In spite of this provision the bar of jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred. It is laid down in Jiwana v. Mst. Sahbithat the Civil Courts would ordinarily have jurisdiction to decide whether or not the act purporting to have been done in the exercise of powers conferred by the statute could be validly done under it. It is therefore clear that section 74-A does not divest the Civil Court of jurisdiction to decide whether or not an Authority has acted within law. Civil Courts do have jurisdiction also to adjudicate what legal effect the order of an Authority validly passed under the statute will have on the rights of the parties before it. In the circumstances the above provisions shall not apply if it is proved on record that the1 order of cancellation of allotment was without jurisdiction. Having this principle in view the trial Court was not empowered to dispose of the suit in a summary manner without framing the issues and recording evidence.
4. For the reasons aforementioned the appeal is accepted with costs. The judgments and the decrees under appeal are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. PLD 1954 Lah. 253