' On 13-5-1984 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for possession of a plot of land bearing No, 1370 measuring 7 Marlas, 1 Sarsahi. According to the plaint the plot had been purchased from the Government vide registered sale-deed, dated 29-7-1975 for a consideration of Rs,3,667; that in the year 1976 the petitioner encroached upon the plot. He prayed for a decree for possession. In her reply the petitioner took the plea that she is in possession and had raised construction and that in case the respondent wants possession he should approach the Collector under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. Issues were framed.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25-1-1988. A first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 10-5-1993.
2. In response to notice issued in the interim matter learned counsel for the respondent is present.
Records are available. Both the learned counsel are ready with their arguments. This case is being decided as a Pacca case.
3. Learned counsel contends relying on section 10(4) of the said Act that the sale in favour of the respondent is not valid as possession had not been delivered to him by the Collector in terms of the said provisions of law and as such the suit could not have been decreed. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the sale had been made for a valid consideration which has been paid and the respondent having acquired the lawful title can seek possession of the suit property.
4. I have gone through the record appended with this Civil Revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The admitted facts are that the land belonged to the Government.
It was in possession of the petitioner and was sold to the respondent vide registered sale-deed, dated 29-7-1975 for a consideration and the whole amount of consideration stands paid.
5. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that at a first glance the said provisions of section 10(4) do give the impression that a person does not become a tenant till such time when he is delivered possession under a written order of the Collector. However, to my mind this provision is to be read alongwith section 15 of the said Act which provides for sale of the State land by the Government. The said two provisions read together lay a duty upon the Collector to ensure delivery of possession to the person who has paid the price to the Government. Learned counsel insists that the respondent should have applied to the Collector in terms of section 32 of the said Act for possession. To my mind the contention is not tenable. As stated by me above, it is the duty of the Collector to deliver possession to the purchaser. However, after completion of the sale and payment of the entire price the purchaser can himself take proceedings to get the possession. In fact the trend of the judicial authority is that once the Government has sold away the land and the title is vested in the purchaser the said provision of law i.e, section 32 of the said Act cannot be invoked by such a purchaser. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the present case this was the only remedy available to the respondent who is admittedly the purchaser of the suit land for consideration. I do not find any error of law or of fact in the impugned judgments and decrees. The Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.