BUDHA RAM Vs. BEHARI LAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of two connected Regular Second Appeals Nos. 832 and 1411 of 1968 in which the same point of law is involved. It was conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in R.S.A. 1411 of 1968 will govern the other case as well. I would, therefore, refer to the facts of R.S.A. 1411 of 1968 only.

(2.) BEHARI Lal, Respondent No. 1, was a displaced person from West Pakistan where he owned agricultural land. On partition of the country, when he came to India, he was allotted land in village Isapur, district Gurdaspur, Some area of his land in Pakistan stood mortgaged with muslim residents there. Under departmental instructions issued by the Central Government, the Managing Officer (Redemption) Jullundur started taking proceedings against him for the realisation of the mortgage debt due to the Muslims of Pakistan and on non -payment of the same by him, he ordered the cancellation of 5 Standard Acres and 5 1/2 Units out of the land allotted to him. This was done on 14th of September, 1962. On 25th of September, 1962, the cancelled area was sold by open auction by the Rehabilitation Department and purchased by Budha Ram, Appellant. The sale was confirmed in his favour on 24th of October, 1962. On 15th of February, 1966, Budha Ram sold a part of that land in favour of Sher, Respondent No. 4. On 14th of June, 1967, Behari Lal brought a suit for possession of 46 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land, which was equivalent to 5 Standard Acres and 5 1/2 Units, against Budha Ram, Union of India, Punjab State and Sher on the ground that the authorities concerned could not legally cancel the allotment of the area allotted to him in lieu of the land mortgaged with the Muslims of Pakistan on non -payment of the mortgage debt and dispose of the same by auction. That order of the Managing Officer was without jurisdiction and bad in law, by which he was not bound. The possession of the auction -purchaser and his transferee was, therefore, contrary to law.

(3.) WHETHER Defendant No. 3 has effected improvements on the land in dispute? If so, its value and is effect?