LAWS(SC)-1995-3-45

GULZAR SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR LUDHIANA

Decided On March 07, 1995
GULZAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
COLLECTOR LUDHIANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands bearing Khasra Nos. 75/10/2, 11, 12, 19/1, admeasuring 25 kanals 4 marlas along with other Nazool lands in a total extent of 47 kanals 3 marlas situated in Bassi Gujjran, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, were granted to the appellant by the Collector, Ludhiana, in File No. 217 on June 27, 1968, subjects to the appellant paying a sum of Rs. 1,520/- for redemption of the mortgage in respect of the aforesaid 25 kanals 4 marlas of land. Pursuant thereto, the appellant had deposited the aforesaid money with the Collector on June 30, 1968. The appellant was put in possession of the said land on September 11, 1968. By proceedings dated September 13, 1968, the Collector cancelled the said grant, without notice to the appellant, on the ground that the respondents-mortgagees, namely, Fakir Chand, Prem Prakash and Gurdas Ram, were in possession and enjoyment for over 50 years and they cannot be dispossessed and the property cannot be redeemed by operation of the provisions of Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1913 (for short, the Act) and redelivered possession to the respondents on September 21, 1968.

(2.) The appellant filed Civil Suit No. 204 of 1970 challenging the order cancelling grant and redelivering possession of the lands to the respondents. After adduction of evidence, the trial court considered the evidence adduced by the parties and by judgment and decree dated March 17,1972, decreed the suit and, on appeal, it was confirmed. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 1506/75, though recorded practically all the findings in favour of the appellant, holding that grant was valid and cancellation was void, inoperative and does not bind appellant, allowed the appeal and reversed the decree for possession on the ground that mortgage was not redeemed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(3.) The question is whether the High Court is right in refusing the relief of possession to the appellant. Under Rule 2(d) of Government of Patiala and East Punjab States Union Notification dated May 28, 1956, The Nazool lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) for grant of Nazool lands have been made. Rule 2(d) defines Nazool land to mean (i) "the land which has escheated to the State Government and has not already been appropriated by the State Government for any purpose; (ii) such other lands as the State Government may make available for being transferred under these rules". Rule 3 provides the procedure for transfer of Nazool land. Clause (b) is relevant which reads thus :-