TEJA SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, GURDASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 6/9/1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur; whereby, a revision petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 15 of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 (in short the 1951 Act'), was dismissed.

(2.) From the facts noticed by the learned District Judge, it is borne out that one Kharak Singh son of Bhawani Singh, was owner of 621 kanals - 08 marlas of land, situated in Village Lamin, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and he mortgaged this land with the Muslim Evacuees to the extent of 28/30th share and the remaining 2/30th share was mortgaged to one Sata Singh son of Deva Singh, vide registered mortgage deed dtd. 25/3/1946. It appears that the muslim mortgagees (Babu and Talib Hussain) sold their mortgagee rights to the extent of 2/30th share in favour of one Santa Singh, accordingly, the share of muslim mortgagees in the afore-said land was reduced to 26/30th share. It transpires that the present petitioners purchased land from afore-said Sh. Kharak Singh, which was subjected to mortgages created by said Kharak Singh, accordingly, they became the mortgagors in respect of the land in question.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, has erred in law and fact in passing the impugned order dtd. 6/9/1985 (Annexure P-2). It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed primarily on the ground of delay without appreciating the provisions of Sec. 15 of the 1951 Act, which provided that the concerned authority can entertain the revision at any time'. It is submitted that the auction of the property in question was conducted in breach of the mandatory provisions of the statute and thereby, rendering the auction proceedings as void and as soon as, the petitioners learnt about the afore-said proceedings, they filed the petition under Sec. 15 of the 1951 Act; therefore, the petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay, especially when the petitioners remained in possession of the land in question. It is, accordingly, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside.