- (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the orders, Annexures 'D' and 'F' passed by the respondents dismissing the claim of the petitioner that she is the owner-in-possession of the land in dispute measuring 125 Kanals 13 Marlas situate at village Karahal Naushad, Tehsil and District Kapurthala.
(2.) The Tehsildar (Sales), Kapurthala, sent a report to the Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur, that Smt. Pritam Kaur was in an unathorised occupation of the evacuee property and that steps may be taken to evict her therefrom. His report was referred to the Assistant Custodian, Punjab, Jullundur, for passing appropriate orders under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, who issued a show cause notice to Smt. Pritam Kaur petitioner as to why proceedings should not be taken to evict her from the said land and to recover penal rent from Kharif 1947 to the date of her dispossession. In response to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2, denied the right of the department and claimed that she was owner-in-possession of the said property.
(3.) Admittedly, the facts which led to the present controversy are that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute who sold the same to Mehnga Khan son of Nawab Khan for Rs. 13,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 21-6-2003 Pk. (October 6, 1945) Out of the sale consideration only Rs. 2,377/6/- were paid before the Sub-Registrar and with respect to the balance amount it was stipulated in the deed that the same would be paid on Haar 15, 2003 Bk. The possession of the land was to remain with the vendor and was to be delivered to the vendee only after he had paid the balance amount. The vendee, however, paid only Rs. 4000/- by the said date. Consequently, another registered deed was executed between the parties on Haar 17, 2003 Bk. whereby the vendee was allowed to make the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 6,6222/10/- by Haar 15, 2005 Bk. It was further provided in this deed that possession of half of the land sold had been delivered to the vendee in lieu of the payment of half of the consideration amount and the payment of the balance amount. In case of failure of payment of the remaining amount, the contract of sale would be deemed to have been cancelled and the vandee in that case would be entitled to compensation for the improvements, if any, made by him. Before the balance amount could be paid the vendee migrated to Pakistan as a result of partition of the country. The petitioner, thereafter, re-entered into possession of half of the land, possession of which had been delivered to the vendee and continued in possession of whole of the land till the said notice was issued to her by respondent No. 2. On these facts, the Department claimed that ownership in the land in dispute had passed on to the evacuee Mehnga Khan on the registration of the sale deed, dated October 6, 1945 in spite of the fact that whole of the sale consideration had not been paid which, therefore, became evacuee property and vested in the Custodian on the migration of the vendee to Pakistan. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed that the parties never intended that the ownership in the land in dispute would vest in the vendee on the registration of the sale deed and the combined reading of the two registered deeds referred to above would show that the ownership was to pass to the vendee only on payment of the full consideration and on failure of its payment the contract stands cancelled with the result that the petitioner continued to be its owner. Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Property, respondent No. 2, rejected the claim of the petitioner and order her to surrender the possession of the land in dispute vide order dated May 24, 1965 (Annexure 'D'). Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Custodian General, Evacuee Property (respondent No. 1) who dismissed the same and confirmed the order of the Assistant Custodian. Still dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the present petitioner for quashing these orders.;