- (1.) This second appeal has been filed by some of the defendants against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th September, 1975.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff was a member of the Scheduled Caste. He was allotted 47 Kanals 13 Marlas of Nazool land by the Collector Ludhiana, subject to payment of Rs. 1,520/-, vide order dated 27th June, 1968, under rule 3-A of the Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The land measuring 25 Kanals 4 Marlas out of the above land was under mortgage with possession with Faquir Chand and Prem Parkash, defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and Gurdas Ram, predecessor-in-interest of defendants 5 to 9, for an amount of Rs. 1520/-. The plaintiff, in consonance with the order of the Collector, deposited Rs. 1,520/- in the State Bank of India on 30th June, 1968, and, after depositing the amount, obtained possession of the land, including the mortgaged land, on 11th September, 1968. The mortgagees thereafter made an application to the Collector that his order by which the land was ordered to be redeemed was illegal as the same had been passed without giving notice to them. It was further averred that the limitation for redemption had expired and, therefore, the land could not be redeemed. The Collector accepted the application and cancelled the allotment of the plaintiff vide order dated 13th September, 1968. He also ordered that possession of the land be restored to the mortgagees which was restored to them on 21st September, 1968. The order of cancellation of allotment and delivery of possession of the land to the mortgagees was, however, passed without notice to the plaintiff. When he came to know about the order, he went up in appeal before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which also met the same fate. Then he filed the present suit for declaration that the order dated 13th September, 1968, cancelling his allotment was illegal as he was not given any notice by the Collector before passing the said order. He also prayed for possession of the land. The suit was contested by the defendants. Two written statements were filed--one by the Collector and Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation Department, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and the other by the remaining defendants. In both the written statements, the defendants controverted the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the mortgagees could not be ordered to be dispossessed as the property was not got redeemed and they were in possession of the property for more than 50 years and that the order dated 13th September, 1968, was legal and valid. Some other pleas were also taken but they do not survive in second appeal. The learned trial Court held that the order dated 13th September, 1968, was illegal. The other issues raised were decided against the defendants. Consequently, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Two appeals were filed before the Senior Subordinate Judge, one by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and the other by the remaining defendants. Both the appeals came up for hearing before the IInd Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who framed an additional issue to the effect whether the order of allotment dated 27th June, 1968, was valid and legal and sent the case back to the trial Court for report. In its report, the trial Court decided that issue against the plaintiff. The Senior Subordinate Judge decided both the appeals by one judgment and held that the order dated 27th June, 1968, was a valid one and the order dated 13th September, 1968, was illegal. Consequently, he dismissed the appeals. Hence this second appeal by the mortgagee-defendants.
(3.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order dated 27th June, 1968, passed by the Collector, Ludhiana, qua the land mortgaged with the appellants is invalid as the land was in possession of the mortgagees. He further submits that even if it be held that the allotment of the land was valid, the Collector had no right to order dispossession of the appellants under the Rules.;