(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate from the judgment of the Punjab High court, dated 19/03/1965 in L. P. A. Nos. 230/303 of 1962.
(2.) Sardar Sewa Singh Gill (respondent No. 1) wanted to promote a company for the manufacture of Banaspati and for that purpose he approached the Maharaja of Patiala for certain concessions and grant of land at Doraha. Subsequently by an order of the ljlas-i-khas, dated 29/10/1946 it was decided to give to Sardar Sewa Singh Gill a plot of land measuring about 96,700 sq. yds. at Doraha. This plot of land was to be made over to him on payment of the costs of the land. Certain undertakings were given by the respondent No. 1. Possession of the land was handed over to respondent No. 1, on 17/11/1946 vide Ex. P. W. I/1, report No. 96. On 4/02/1947 an agreement Ex. C. W. 1/3 was entered into between Sewa Santokh Brothers (P) Ltd. , and the Patiala State for grant of certain concessions for the establishment of the ghee factory. The ghee factory that was to be established was styled as the Patiala Banaspati and Allied Products Co. Ltd. , (hereinafter referred to as the Company). Clause 6 of the agreement states :
(3.) In support of this appeal it was contended on behalf of the State of Punjab that the High court was in error in holding that the first notice given by the Director of Industries to the provisional liquidators was not legally sufficient and the respondent No. 2 was not bound to give possession. to the State unless a fresh notice was given. In our opinion the argument put forward on behalf of the appellant is well-founded and must be accepted as correct. In the first place it is obvious that the title to the land has already vested in the State government under the third proviso to clause 6 (a) of the Agreement because of the order of winding up of the Company made by the High court. There is nothing in the agreement to suggest that the Company was entitled to be in possession of the properly even after its title had vested in the State government. The fourth proviso only states that if the Company does not deliver possession within reasonable time and if any machinery, plant, buildings or structures remain on the land the title to these also will vest in the State government if the Company docs not remove the structures or the machinery within 24 months from the date of the notice. In the circumstances of the case we are of opinion that the respondents were given sufficient notice by the letter of the Director of Industries, dated 14/08/1952. That notice satisfies the requirements of the fourth proviso of clause 6 (a) of the Agreement and the State is entitled to take possession of the land and other properties located therein within two years from the date of that notice. It is necessary to state that according to P. W. 4 Jaswant Singh the buildings on the site are in an area of one bigha, the structure was pucca but temporary. It is the admitted case that the machinery has been sold by auction more than seven years back and only grass grows on the land. The evidence of Tarachand R. W. 1 also shows that a greater part of the land is barren and the machinery and other valuable properties had already been removed. Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 prayed that some further time may be given before the State takes possession of the properties. We consider that a further period of six months' time will be sufficient.