Bishan Narain, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises an interesting point.
2. The petitioners are the original residents of villages Betu Jagir, Dona Jalluka, Jalluka Khas and Pira Khan, Tehsil and District Ferozepore. Before partition of the country these villages formed part of Tehsil Chunin District Lahore. Under the Redtiff Award some areas of the said villages fell to the share of Pakistan while the rest of the area fell to the share of India. The land which is subject matter of this petition is in the cultivating possession of (the petitioners and has been included in the Lahore District (West Punjab).
This area was, however, located on the Indian side of Sutlaj River and the petitioners have remained in possession thereof in spite of the fact that the villages formed part of Pakistan territory. The grievance of the petitioners is that now the State of Punjab and Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, are seeking to evict them from this land by force. The respondents in their reply have admitted that by order dated the 20th August, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, has issued notices of ejectment to the petitioners and these notices are sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioners have no right to usurp these lands. The petitioners by this petition are challenging the validity of these notices.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to this petition to the effect that as admittedly the land in question forms part of the territory of Pakistan, this Court has ro jurisdiction to entertain any petition relating to that area. On my enquiry as to the authority under which the Deputy Commissioner has sent these notices, I was informed on behalf of the respondents that the action is being taken under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act (XLVII of 1947) but P according to the learned counsel the enforcement of' this Act does not affect the decision that the land is situated outside India and the writ issued by this Court according to him would be infruotuous against that territory.
4. It appears to me that there is no substance in this objection. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in K.S. Rashid and Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207, have laid down the jurisdiction of a High Court in these words:
'There are only two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution; one is that the power is to be exercised 'throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction', that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond, the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs must be within those territories' and this implies that they must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. It is with reference to these two conditions thus mentioned that the jurisdiction of the High Courts to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be determined.'
There can be no doubt that the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, is amenable to the writ issued by this Court and that was rightly conceded by the learned counsel for the State.
5. The question remains whether this territory can be considered to be a territory within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, this territory forms part of the territory of Pakistan. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act, however, enables the Central Government to exercise jurisdiction over this area It is not clear whether this jurisdiction is being exercised by the Government by treaty, agreement, grant, usage or sufferance but there is no doubt that under this Act, the Central Government is exercising this jurisdiction in a manner it thinks fit (vide Section 3 of the Act). The power and authority that is being exercised on this area is according to Sections 4 and 5 in accordance with law applicable to it.
It has been suggested to me that the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, is exercising his jurisdiction under this Act by virtue of delegation of powers by the Central Government. In the present case, however, it is not material to decide whether the Central Government is exercising its jurisdiction over this area or the Punjab Government because-this Court has jurisdiction over Delhi and Punjab, As long as the Central Government or the Punjab Government exercises jurisdiction over this area, in my opinion this Court can exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. I. therefore, hold that I have power over the subject matter as well as-over the persons concerned in this ease. Accordingly I overrule this preliminary objection.
6. The learned counsel did not try to justify this order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore. either on the ground that it is in accordance with Pakistan law or on the ground that it is in accordance with the Punjab law. It is not open to the Deputy Commissioner to forcibly eject the petitioners from the land, which is in their possession. He must proceed against them in accordance with law. This petition, therefore, succeeds. Accordingly I quash the notices of ejectment issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepore, in accordance with his order dated 20-8-1955, and direct that he should proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners are entitled to their costs from the respondents. Counsel's fee Rs. 50/-.