PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.D.Khosla, Tek Chand and D.K.Mahajan JJ.
Risaldar Major Amar Singh Uttam Singh
Versus
R.L.Aggarwal
Letter Patent Appeal No. 78 of 1957,
Decided On : DECEMBER 10, 1959
PUNJAB ALIENATION OF LAND ACT - SECTION 14 - REPEAL - EFFECT ON SALE TRANSACTIONS - SALE DEEMED AS MORTGAGE - VESTED RIGHTS - INCHOATE RIGHTS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Fact of the Case:
In 1947, Risaldar Major Amar Singh, an agriculturist, sold his land to Shera, a non-agriculturist, during the validity of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act. The sale could not become absolute until it was sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner as required by S. 14 of the Act. No such sanction was given, and in 1947 Shera migrated to Pakistan. In 1951, the Punjab Alienation of Land Act was repealed. Amar Singh applied for permission to purchase the land as evacuee property, but his application was rejected. He then applied for redemption of the land, but the Appellate Officer held that the sale in favor of Shera had become absolute and vested in the Custodian. Amar Singh filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was heard by a Division Bench and referred to a Full Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench held that the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act put an end to whatever interests, contingent or inchoate, which Amar Singh had in the land. The sale in favor of Shera was to be treated as a sale and not a mortgage. Amar Singh had no right to redeem the land.
Issues: 1. Whether a sale by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist effected during the validity of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act is liable to be treated as a mortgage after the repeal of that Act. 2. Whether the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act affected the vested rights of Amar Singh.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 14 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act provided that a permanent alienation which was not to take effect as such until the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was given thereto, shall until such sanction is given or if such sanction has been refused, take effect as a usufructuary mortgage in the form permitted by S. 6 for such terms not exceeding twenty years and on such conditions as the Deputy Commissioner considers to be reasonable. 2. The sale in favor of Shera was in substance a sale, but it could not take effect as such until the Deputy Commissioner gave his sanction. The Deputy Commissioner had neither refused nor accorded his sanction to the sale, and, therefore, it could not be said that upon refusal by the Deputy Commissioner the sale was to take effect as a mortgage and that the vendor had thereby acquired a right to redeem the land or to enter into possession of it after the expiry of twenty years. 3. The right of Amar Singh to redeem the property was not a vested right, because it was conditional upon the Deputy Commissioner refusing to sanction the sale. It was an inchoate right and such rights do not remain alive after the repeal of the Act under which they arise. 4. The repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act put an end to whatever interests, contingent or inchoate, which Amar Singh had in this land. There remained no Deputy Commissioner under the Act to give sanction. Sanction had never been refused, and had the Act remained in force, sanction would have been granted. Therefore, Amar Singh has no right now to claim redemption of the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
G.D.Khosla and Tek Chand JJ.
1. The point for consideration in this case is a simple one, namely, whether a sale by an agriculturist to a non-agriculturist effected during the validity of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act is liable to be treated as a mortgage after the repeal of that Act. The matter was considered on a previous occasion by a Division Bench of this Court on a reference made by Kapur J. when the matter came up before Bhandari, C.J., and Dulat J., they differed and it was then placed before Chopra J., and Chopra J. took the view (agreeing with Bhandari C. J.) that even after the repeal of the Alienation of Land Act, the transaction must be treated as a mortgage. The facts in that case were somewhat different and the period of twenty years envisaged by S. 14 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act had already expired before the repeal of the Act, but certain observations made by Dulat J. in his judgment would apply with equal force to the present case. To resolve this dispute and to have an authoritative opinion of this Court on the point we order that this matter be referred to a Full Bench of three Judges. OPINION Khosla, C.J. This reference to the Full Bench has arisen out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Briefly stated, the point for out consideration is whether an alienation of land made by an agriculturist to an non-agriculturist before 1947 takes effect as a mortgage even after the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, because no sanction to be sale had been given by the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged by S. 14 of the Act.
(1a) The facts are as follows: Risaldar Major Amar Singh was owner of six biswas of land in the district of Ludhiana. He sold this land to Shera, a Muslim non-agriculturist, sometime before 1947. The Punjab Alienation of Land Act was at that time in force and so the sale could not become absolute until it had been sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner as required by S. 14 of the Act. No such sanction was given, and in 1947 Shera migrated to Pakistan. On 17-5-1948 Sandhur Singh, a collateral of the vendor, Amar Singh, applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, for permission to purchase the land for Rs. 500.00 . Sandhur Singh treated the land as evacuee property. No orders were passed on this application until 4-10-1951 when the Punjab Alienation of Land Act ceased to exist because it was repealed by the Adaptation of Laws (Third Amendment) Order, 1951, published in the Gazette of India on 4-4-1951. The Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, then passed an order rejecting Sandhur Singhs application and holding that the sale in favour of Shera was to be deemed a usufructuary mortgage and the vendor could apply for its redemption. Then on 31-10-1951, before the vendor could make the application suggested by the Deputy Commissioner, the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951 , came into force. The vendor, Risaldar Major Amar Singh, applied for the separation of his interest before the Competent Officer appointed under the Act. The Competent Officer on 24-7-1954 ordered that the land be redeemed on Amar Singh deposition Rs. 500.00 within one month. The Custodian was present as a party to these proceedings. The amount was deposited, but one Harchand Singh filed an appeal under S. 14 of the Act. The Appellate Officer held that Harchand Singh had no locus standi but went on to observe that Amar Singh could not redeem the land, because by the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of land Act the sale in favour of Shera had become absolute and as Shera was an evacuee, his total interest vested in the Custodian. He thereupon dismissed Amar Singhs application for redemption. Amar Singh came to this Court with an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution and this application was heard by Bishan Narain J. who took the view that the sale in favour of Shera could not take effect as a mortgage after the repeal of the Act and so Amar Singh had no further interest in the land and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.