Section 42 and 54 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), jurisdiction over vacancies under section 22 and 25 title, continued in 1962, in favor of the defendants and the plaintiffs. was done. Similarly, in 1978, after the death of the predecessor in the interests of both parties, the suit was adjudicated in favor of the accused, and by the following two courts, such discoveries were exercised by the High Court in the exercise of jurisdiction. , Civil court jurisdiction was barred from entertaining disputed property-related litigation case, civil court had to decide jurisdiction before trial on merit, High Court displaced Individuals (Compensation and Rehabilitation) refuse to participate in a case related to section 25 of the Act A. 1958, which was no longer available to the plaintiffs after the removal of the laws of eviction over the years, 1974 an such permanent error was committed by the civil court in view of the principles of the Settlement Law, no matter of entertaining and deciding the matter. There was no jurisdiction under which it decided to dispute the title of the property approved by the Settlement Authorities under the Homelessness (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. , And the civil court did not have the power to determine the role of the property under the Settlement Act or to issue a permanent transfer deed entitled to an allotment due to a legal bar, in July, 1962. I was released in favor of the defendant in favor of the defendants and there was nobody. The matter was objected to the matter on which
