ALLAH DITTA AND 6 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by mortgagees challenging the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court. The petitioners, who held a usufructuary mortgage over evacuee land, were dispossessed and the land was allotted to respondents by the Collector. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities can dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land without prior payment of the mortgage amount, and whether the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court held that settlement authorities under the Land Settlement Act can dispossess mortgagees to put allottees in possession without immediate payment of the mortgage money, while the mortgage amount remains a charge on the property, and the satisfaction of such charges is governed by the Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) Rules, 1962. Furthermore, any grievance regarding the assessment of the mortgage amount must be pursued through appeal or revision before higher settlement authorities rather than constitutional writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Can settlement authorities dispossess a mortgagee of evacuee land before the payment of the mortgage amount?
- Does the mortgage amount remain a charge on the mortgaged property after dispossession by settlement authorities?
- Are petitioners entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the assessment of a mortgage amount by the Collector?
- Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) Rules, 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioners are mortgagees of the land in dispute measuring 11 acres in Chak Fazal Shah, Tehsil Dipalpur, which belonged to evacuee owners. The mortgage amount is claimed to be Rs. 2,000. This land has been allotted to respon--dents 3-14 by the Collector, Sahiwal, who have been put into possession on the eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the action of the Collector in a writ petition in the High Court, which has been dismissed, leading to this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners could not be made to quit the land which they were occupying as usufructuary mortgagees, without redemption on payment of the mortgage amount. This contention has no force as the Settlement authorities under the Land Settlement Act can dispossess the mortgagees from the land, in order to put the allottees in possession thereof without payment of the mortgage money. The mortgage amount, however, which may be due to a mortgagee remains a charge on the mortgage property until its satisfaction. The Satisfaction of Charges (Land Settlement) A Rules, 1962; provide an elaborate procedure for filing applications for creation or satisfaction of charges. The learned counsel has further complained that the Collector in this case has assessed Rs. 1,600 as the mortgage amount, although in actual fact, it is Rs. 2,000. We have not been shown the order of the Collector, but if the petitioners are not satisfied with that order, they can challenge it in appeal or revision before the higher Settlement Authorities. The petitioners have miss-conceived their remedy in approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction in this matter, which has rightly dismissed their writ petition as it was not shown that the impugned order of the Collector was without lawful authority. This petition is dismissed.