LexGULZARA SINGH versus THE COLLECTOR, LUDHIANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, f \ GULZARA SINGH A v. THE COLLECTOR, LUDHIANA AND ORS. MARCH 7, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956: Rules 2(d), 3 and 3A: 'Nazool Land'-Transfer of mortgaged Nazool land-Procedure for-Where Nazool land is burdened with possessory C mortgage it can be redeemed by State itself or the grantee. . The (Government) Grants Act, 1895: Sections 2 and 3. Land--Govemment grant of-Provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1913 held inapplicable in D respect of such a land. ' Limitation Act, 1964: Section 30 (as amended b~ Act JO of 1969) Mortgaged Nazool land--Redemption of-Limitation period for. The appellant was granted certain Nazool lands on June 27, 1968 E subject to his paying a sum of Rs. 1,520 for redemption of mortgage. He paid the amount on June 30, 1968 and was put in possession of the land on September 11, 1968. However, by its proceedings dated September 13, 1968 the Collector cancelled the grant on the ground that as the respon- dents were in possession and enjoyment of the land as possessory mortgagees for over 50 years, they cannot be dispossessed and the property F cannot be redeemed by operation of the provisions of the Redemption of Mortgage (Punjab) Act, 1913. The appellant filed a suit challenging the cancellation of grant and the Trial Court decreed the suit. In the appellate CWlrt the respondent conceded that the redemption was withln limitation but contended that the G procedure prescribed under the Act had not been followed and by the date of suit it was barred and that, therefore, the payment by the appellant was not in accordance with law and the mortgage was not redeemed as per the law as on the date of the suit. This finding was negatived by the Appellate Court which confirmed the decree of the Trial Court. The High Court H 547 548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A though recorded practically all the findings in favour of the appellant, holding that grant was valid and cancellation was void, inoperative and does not bind appellant, allowed the appeal and reversed the decree for possession on the ground that mortgage was not redeemed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The appellant preferred an appeal to this Court. B Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree and judgment of the High Court, this Court HELD : 1. Sections 2 and 3 of The (Government) Grants Act, 1895 C make it clear that not only the provisions· of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply to Government grant or transfer of land, but also the operation of any rule of law or statute or enactment of the State Legisla- ture including the 1913 Act stand excluded to the grant or transfer of the Nazool land. Therefore, the need for the appellant to follow the procedure prescribed under the 1913 Act was obviated. [552-D, H, 553-A] D 2. Under the Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956, the land granted by the Collector being admittedly below 10 acres of land, the grant of the land to the appellant was valid. [551-A] 3. When Nazool land is burdened with possessory mortgage, the E State has the power either itself to redeem the mortgage by paying the amount to the mortgagee or the grantee would be entitled to redeem the mortgage by paying the amount to the mortgagee. Rule 3A indicates that despite vesting of the land as escheat for the lands burdened with posses- sory mortgage, the State is burdened with the right to redeem the land by F paying the redemption money by itself or by the grantee or transferee. The grant or transfer for such land was for price. The mortgage money was treated to be the price. In case of excess, the difference between the price fixed and the mortgage money was to be paid to the State. In this case, admittedly, the price fixed was the money payable under the mortgage G which amount was deposited by the appellant. [553-D] 4. In view of the fact that the State itself has right to redeem the Nazool land burdened with the possessory mortgage, the grant of the same land subject to the redemption, the grantee gets the right of redemption within limitation available to the State. That could be in terms of the order, H namely, making the payment to the mortgagee or deposit with the Govern- ~ ' ' ' ·~- ~ I , GULZARASINGH v. COLLECTOR[K.RAMASWAMY,J.] 549 ment. Since the order specifically postulates payment with the government A and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.