ORDER.
This revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 30-9-1981 of Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Faisalabad, for recovery from the petitioner---mortgagor of mortgaged amount of Rs. 13,000 for seventy-seven kanals of land situate in Chak No. 247/R. B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad, mortgaged with respondent-mortgagee, which had under para. 13 (3) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115) reverted to the petitioner.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that respondent-plaintiff Capt. Nizam Din advanced an amount of Rs. 11,000 to the petitioner on 15-4-1960 and subsequently another amount of Rs. 2,000 on 10-3-1964 against a mortgage of 77 kanals of land belonging to petitioner Muhammad Shafi as per registered mortgage deeds dated 15-4-1960 and 10-3-1964 Capt. Nizam Din owned land beyond the limit permissible under M. L. R. No. 115 and had to surrender this land mortgaged with him. M. L. R. No. 115 was promulgated on 11-3-1972 which provided for resumption of the land in excess of the area permissible for retention under the said Regulation. By virtue of Land Reforms (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1973 (XI of 1973) sub-para. (3) was added to para. 13 of M. L. R. 11 f. After the said amend--ment para. 13 of M. L. R. No: 115 reads as below :- "13. Vesting to Government of excess land.-(1) Land in excess of the area permissible for retention under Part III shall vest absolutely in Government free from any encumbrance or charge and without payment of any compensation.
(2) Any encumbrance or charge existing on land surrendered by a person, which vests in Government under sub-paragraph (1), shall be deemed to have been transferred to the land retained by such person under Part III.
(3) Where any person is in possession of land in excess of the area per--missible for retention under Part III, so much of such excess land as is in his possession as a lessee or mortgagee shall not vest in Government but shall, subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, revert to the lessor or mortgagor, as the case may be."
3. It may be added that, later by virtue of Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Central Act XLVIII of 1976) the said sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of said Regulation was substituted by a new sub-para. Which reads as below :- "(3) Where any person is in possession of or is holding land in excess of the area permissible for retention under Part Ill, so much of such excess land as is in his possession as a lessee or mortgage or is held by him as landlord of an occupancy tenant or a Muqqarraridar or as an Ala Malik shall not vest in Government but shall, subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, revert to the lessor, mortgagor, occupancy, tenant, Muqarraridar or Adna Malik, as the case may be, and shall be deemed to have so reverted at the commencement of this Regulation."
As a result of the above sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of said Regulation, land reverted to Muhammad Shafi petitioner and was mutated in his favour without payment of mortgage amount.
4. On 4-4-1974, respondent Capt. Nizam Din filed a suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 13,000 as the mortgage money from petitioner Muhammad Shafi. The petitioner-defendant in his written statement admitted the receipt of mortgage money at the time of mortgaging the said property but contended inter alia that the land had reverted to him by operation of law and so the respondent-plaintiff was not entitled to recover the mortgage amount. He also raised preliminary legal objection regarding absence of cause of action and incompetency of the suit under M. L. R.
No. 115. The issues relevant for the purpose of this revision which were framed on pleadings of the parties are as below :-
(1) Whether the suit is not competent under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 ? O. P. D.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to bring the suit ? O. P. D.
(3) Whether the mortgage amount has been paid up ? O.P. D.
(4) To what amount if any, the plaintiff is entitled from the defendant ? O. P. D.
On Issue No. 1 learned Civil Judge held that the petitioner had failed to point out any bar under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 about the claim made in the suit. On Issue No. 2 the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that restoration of the land under the usufructuary mortgage back to the mortgagor constituted a valid cause of action for mort--gagee to file a suit for recovery of the mortgage amount. On issues Nos. 3 and 5 which were decided together, he held that the reversion of the land under the provision of sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of M. L. R. No. 115 did not absolve the petitioner-defendant from the liability or returning the mortgage money to the mortgagee which he had stipu--lated to pay back to him on redemption of the mortgage. In this con--nection he observed that if the land had been resumed by the Government and not returned to. The petitioner-defendant, land owner, then the situation would have been different and in that case the petitioner-defendant could plead that he was not liable to pay back mortgage money.
On these findings he decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,000 as mortgage money from the petitioner-defendant by his judgment and decree dated 5-12-1977.
The petitioner filed an appeal. The only question urged before the Additional District Judge before whom the appeal came up for hearing was that under para. 13 of M.L.R. No. 115 in case of resumption, mortgaged land was to vest in the Government free of 'any encumbrance or charge and without payment of any compensation and since under the pro--vision of M. L. R. No. 115 the land reverted to the mortgagor, the respondent was not entitled to recover the mortgage money.
The learned Additional Dis--trict Judge after perusal of section 13 including sub-para. (3) thereof came to the conclusion that since the said land was not to vest in the Government, there was no question of its reverting to the mortgagor free from charge or without payment of compensation.
He distinguished sub-para. (1) of para. 13 of M. L. R. From sub-para, (3) of para. 13 and held that the former applied to land which was to absolutely vest in the Government and could not be extended to the land mortgaged with mortgagees which reverted to mort--gagors. He further held that clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act provided that a mortgagor had a right to sue for mortgage money where, by any cause other than the wrongful act or default of the mortgagor or mortgagee, the mortgaged property stood wholly or partly destroyed. He observed that the circumstance of the respondent being deprived of land mortgaged with him amounted to destruction of the security and therefore under the said provision, the respondent had a right to recover the mortgage money in question. On these findings the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his judg--ment and decree dated 13th of September, 1981.
5. The learned counsel appearing in support of this revision has raised question that petitioner had never asked for redemption and that it was by operation of law, namely para. 13(3) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, that land had reverted to petitioner-mortgagor and there was no provision made in the said sub-para. To the effect that mortgagor was to pay mortgage money to the mortgagee and, therefore, respondent-mortgagee was not legally entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 13,000 from the petitioner. His next plea is that said Regulation overrides other enactments in respect of the matters connected with the Land Reforms and, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit.
6. I have considered the questions raised. As for the first question raised by learned counsel, the mere circumstance that ft was not provided in sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of the Regulation that in case of reversion o mortgaged land to mortgagor, the mortgage money was to be paid t mortgagor would not mean that mortgage money was not to be paid to mortgagee on .Reversion of 'mortgaged land to mortgagee. The matter will have to be judged in light of principles of interpretation of statutes and unless under said principles, we infer from the said provision that right to get back mortgage money advanced by mortgagee had been destroyed impliedly, such a conclusion cannot be arrived at merely from absence of any provision in sub-para. (3) of said sub- para. Of refund of mortgage money to mortgagee.
7. Seen in the light of principles of interpretation of statutes I do not think that respondent was not entitled to recover from petitioner mortgage money merely because the mortgaged land reverted to petitioner-mortgagor by the operation of law. My reasons for the same are as below :-
(i) It is clear that sub-para. (1) of para. 13 talks of vesting of the excess (proprietary) land in the Government on its withdrawal from a person holding land in excess of his ceiling whereas, sub- para. (3) talks of reversion of the mortgaged land to the mortgagor. This difference in the wordings of two sub-paras. Is due to the circumstance that the land in excess of the area permissible for retention did not previously belong to the Government and, therefore, under para. 13, sub-para. (1), on resumption, it was made to vest in the Government while the land under mortgage originally belonged to the mortgagor and as such there was no question of its being made to vest in the mortgagor who was already its owner ; it was, therefore, that the word `reversion' was used.
However, the word `reversion' by no means implied that it (reversion) was to take place free of any charge and without any payment to the mortgagee who bad originally paid the mortgage amount to the mortgagor. In the word 'reversion' the idea of non--payment of mortgage money is not inherent just as it is not so in the word 'vesting'. It was for this reason that the Legislature had to make clear that the vesting would take place without any payment of mortgage money. Similarly the word reversion too does not have inherent in its meaning the idea of, non-payment of mortgage money. Therefore, omission to add the condition or concession' of non-payment to mortgagee of mortgage money in sub-para. Providing for reversion of mortgaged land to mortgagor clearly shows that Legislature never intended the event of reversion of mortgaged land to mortgagor to take place without payment of money. The petitioner-mortgagor, therefore, cannot be considered to have been absolved from responsibility of making payment to the mortgagee of the mortgage amount.
Furthermore sub-para. (1) of para. 13 of the Regulation specifically and expressly provided that the vesting would take place free from any encumbrance and without any payment of money. It is in sharp contrast with sub-para. (3) which wholly omits to state that reversion would take place free from any encumbrance and without any payment of money: In my opinion if two different subsections of a statute cater to basically similar situations with a little variation in case of one and a condition or a concession is provided for in one subsection expressly while it is absent in the other subsection, then the only inference which can be drawn is that the said condition or concession has not been made available by the Legislature in the other subsection. Making of an express provision of non-payment of any compensation to owner in sub-para. (1) and omission of the same in sub-para. (3) would by comparison show that Legislature never meant that provision of non-payment of money was to apply in the case of reversion of mortgaged, land to mortgagor.
If the Legislature had intended that the mortgaged land should revert to the mortgagor without any payment of money, it would have made a specific and clear provision to that effect in sub- para. (3) especially when said sub-para. Was added in 1973 by means of an amendment in law and same was again substituted in 1976 by a new sub-para. Which made the said provision retrospective but nevertheless did not provide that reversion was also to. Take place without payment of mortgage money to mortgagor. This conclusion is re-inforced by the circumstances that in paras. 14, 15 and 16 also vesting in the Government of certain types of land withdrawn from a person had been expressly directed to take place without payment of any compensation but the same is conspicuously absent in sub-para..(3) of para. 13 of M. L. R. No. 115.
(ii) From the words 'so much of excess land as is in possession of a person as a mortgagee shall not vest in the Government' it cannot be said that provision made in sub-para. (1) of para. 13 that no payment shall be made (in case of vesting of the surrendered land in the Government) stands incorporated in sub-para. 3 of para. 13. The said sentence only gives vent to the intention of the Legislature that in case of surrender by mortgagee of land mortgaged with him, the said mortgaged land will not vest in the Government but would revert, to the mortgagor. Nothing more and nothing less is meant by it. The said words in sub-para. (3) are meant only to create a distinction between this sub-para. And sub-para. (1) of para. 13 and to state the different legal position in case of mortgaged land surrendered by a mortgagee thereof. There is, therefore, nothing in these words to show that words 'without payment of money' given in sub-para. (1) of para. 13 stand incorporated in sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of said Regulation merely on account of the use of said words in sub-para. 3 of para. 13 referred to above.
(iii) The words 'without payment of mortgage amount or any money' which are absent in sub-para.
(3) of para. 13 cannot be read into or added in sub-para. (3) of para. 13 as :according to well recognized principles of interpretation of Statutes, that will amount to reconstruc--tion of sub- para. (3) father than construction and interpretation of sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of said Regulation.
(iv) Reversion of mortgaged land to mortgagee without payment of money would be an exceptional right in derogation of contractual rights .Provided for in mortgage deed and, therefore, should have been especially and specifically provided for in relevant sub-para. And absence of the same in the said sub-para. Shows that such a startling and exceptional result was not meant to be achieved by the Legislature.
(v) Surrendered land has been made to vest in the Government for the public purpose of distributing the same to tenants cultivating the same and non-payment of any compensation by the Government to the owner who owned land more than his ceiling can be considered to be justified in view of the said purpose of Land Reforms Regula--tion, 1972. However, the. Non-payment of mortgage money to the mortgagee on reversion of mortgaged land to mortgagor has nothing to do with purposes of Land Reforms Regulation and cannot be considered to have been provided for by Legislature in said sub-para. Even by implication.
(vi) Receipt by mortgagee of the mortgage amount or redemption of the mortgage is a private right of mortgagee and according to sound principles of interpretation of statutes, the destruction of the private rights of the parties is not to be readily inferred while interpreting a statute. Further the said right is a vested right and again according to well-established principles of interpretation of statutes, a provision is not to be so interpreted as to deprive a person of his vested right.
In view of the above, it is clear that the right of the respondent mortgagee to get back the mortgage money on reversion of the land under mortgage to the mortgagor under sub-para. (3) of para. 13 of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, had not been destroyed and he is entitled to get back, and sue for mortgage amount on reversion of mortgaged land to mortgagor under para. 13 (3) of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The point raised has no substance in it and the same is repelled.
8. As for the second point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to the bar of jurisdiction provided for in para. 26 of Land Reform Regulation, 1972, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit, it may be stated that said bar is in respect of any orders made under the Regulation or any matter which was within the power of Land Commission r determine. There was, however, absolutely no order passed in this case by any officer appointed under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, that petitioner mortgagor was not to pay back the mortgage money to the mortgagee on the reversion of land to him. There was, therefore, nothing to bar the jurisdiction r of the Civil Court. As shown by section 9, C. P. C., Civil Court is a Court of plenary jurisdiction and has the jurisdiction to decide all suits of civil nature filed before it excepting suits of which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any provision in Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, to the effect that the suit to recover the mortgage amount in respect of the land which has reverted to the mortgagor was barred under it. In view of this, there is no force in the contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit in question.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed in limine.