DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are small landowners in village Dhanpura, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda. One Inder Pandit son of Gaundu mortgaged about 27 bighas 6 biswas of their land with respondent 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,700.00. On the death of Inder, his land devolved upon the father of petitioner 2 and one Teku, by inheritance. Teku sold his one-half share of the mortgaged land to petitioner No. 1. The petitioners redeemed the entire land about which mutation No. 3812 was entered on August 2, 1961, and sanctioned on November 27, 1961.

(2.) Proceedings for the declaration of surplus area of respondent 3 were taken under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). Respondent 3 reserved his permissible area out of his own land whereas he allowed the mortgaged land to be declared as surplus. The petitioners were not made parties to those proceedings. When they redeemed the land in August 1961, they took possession thereof from the respondent as the land was admittedly in his possession till then. According to the return, the State Government took possession of the mortgaged land on August 9, 1962. This fact is denied by the petitioners who claim to be in possession of the land till today. In the return, it has been stated that although the Revenue Patwari took possession of the mortgaged land on August 9, 1962, under Section 32-E of the Act and the land was allotted to the tenants on April 13, 1962, the possession thereof could not be delivered to those allottee -tenants till the petition was filed and the stay order was issued by this Court on September 4, 1964.

(3.) Under Section 32-E of the Act, the land would have vested in the Government only from the date of possession and taking the averment in the return to be correct, it would have vested in the Government on August 9, 1962, but prior thereto it had been got redeemed and, therefore, nothing vested in the Government. It may be remembered that under the proviso to Section 32-E, in the case of land mortgaged with possession, only the rights of mortgagee with possession vest in the Government. If the land had been redeemed prior to its vesting in the Government, that is, prior to the date on which the Government is stated to have taken possession of the land, nothing could vest in the Government and if the land had remained mortgaged till the date it vested in the Government, then the mortgagors (the petitioners) would have had the right to redeem it from the Government. The mere order declaring surplus area does not vest the land in the Government. The Government have, therefore, no right to take possession of the land from the petitioners.