LPA No.221 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 16.02.2009
Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to Government, Punjab and
others
.....Appellants
versus
Sadhu Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL.
Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for appellants.
Mr.Jang Bahadur Singh, Advocate, for respondent.
UMA NATH SINGH,J (Oral)
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the LPA record.
This LPA arises out of a judgment dated 29.2.2008, passed by a
learned Single Judge in CWP No.80 of 1994, setting aside the order of
Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in a suo-motu reference filed by Deputy
Secretary to Government of Punjab, under Section 54 of the Administration
of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, whereby the Financial Commissioner set-
aside the orders dated 5.11.1975 and 18.8.1977 of the Assistant Custodian
General with power of Custodian General, Punjab. Learned Single Judge
has held that the property could not vest in Custodian and the application
for redemption of the mortgage filed by the petitioner (respondent herein)
should have been allowed as there is no limitation for redemption of
usufructuary mortgage. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is
in line with the ratio of a judgment rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in
Ram Kishan and others versus Sheo Ram and others (2008 (1) RCR (Civil)
134). That apart, there is an inordinate delay of 55 days in filing the appeal.
LPA No.221 of 2008 2
In view of the settled position in law as per the judgment of
Full Bench, we do not find any merit in this LPA and, thus, the same is
dismissed. However, we also need to add that in case the Custodian General
is in possession of property, the respondent shall take recourse to procedure
as prescribed under the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, to
reclaim the property as the ownership would not vest in the said Authority.
(UMA NATH SINGH)
JUDGE
16-02-2009 (A.N.JINDAL)
*mohinder JUDGE
Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO