HARBILASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Wali Mohammad son of Gulam Bakhash, resident of Village Bekhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur was the owner of agricultural land measuring 83 kanals 5 marlas (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). He had mortgaged the same with three persons, namely, Rup Singh son of Disa Singh, Dalip Singh son of Rur Singh and Ghasita Ram son of Rur Singh who are the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners herein. Wali Mohammad migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of the country in the year 1947. Dalip Singh and Ghasita Ram filed an application in the year 1965 before the Assistant Custodian, Punjab with a request that they be declared owners of the land in dispute on the basis of the mortgage which was more than 60 years old as the same had not been redeemed. It is the case of the petitioners that this application was rejected on the ground that 60 years had not expired when the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (for short the 1951 Act) had come into force. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners are also said to have made an application to the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur for the transfer of the land in dispute to them at the reserved price on the basis of some instructions dated 6.7.1963. This application, too, was dismissed. On the death of Dalip Singh and Ghasita Ram, the petitioners were entered as cultivators in possession of the land in dispute and the Central Government was shown as the owner thereof and this is clear from the jamabandi for the year 1979-80. It is also alleged by the petitioners that Dalip Singh and Ghasita Ram were required to deposit eight times the land revenue as rent to enable them to purchase the land in dispute and that they deposited the same as per challan copy of which is Annexure P-2 with the writ petition and, therefore, they became the owner. The respondents then allotted some of the land in dispute to respondents No. 3 and 4 by auction and it is this allotment which is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IN response to the notice issued by this court the respondents have filed their written statements controverting the averments made by the petitioners. In the reply filed by the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur, it is specifically averred that the mortgaged land (i.e. land in dispute) was redeemed in favour of the Central Government without payment of compensation and mutation No. 1221 was sanctioned on 28.4.1965 in this regard and that the petitioners never remained in possession of the land in dispute thereafter. A copy of the mutation has been attached as Annexure R-3/1 with the written statement filed by respondents No. 3 and 4.