R.F.A. No. 1678 of 1989 [ Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.F.A. No. 1678 of 1989 Date of decision: 5.11.2008 Arjan Dev ..Appellant v. Smt. Lajwanti and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant-respondent is before this Court against the award of the learned Court below whereby in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act'), at the behest of respondents- petitioners, the learned court below found them to be entitled to receive the entire compensation for acquisition of land. Briefly, the facts, as noticed by the learned court below, are that in the reference it was alleged that the appellant-respondent was recorded as mortgagor, whereas the respondents-petitioners were recorded as mortgagees in possession of the land. The said mortgage was made by the forefathers of the appellant-respondent in favour of the forefathers of the respondents-petitioners in Pakistan. After the partition of the country, the land bearing mortgagees rights of the respondents-petitioners was incorporated in the nakal farad taksim wherein the appellant-respondent was shown as mortgagor and Jhawri Ram, grand father of the respondents-petitioners as mortgagee. After the death of Jhawri Ram, father of the petitioners-respondents, he stepped into possession of the land and his inheritance was mutated vide No. 6623 dated 29.5.1982. Thereafter, in the jamabandi for the year 1981-82, appellant-respondent was recorded as mortgagor and the respondents-petitioners as mortgagees. The appellant-respondent had not got the mortgage redeemed within 30 years and, therefore, the respondents- petitioners had become the owners of the land and they were entitled to get the compensation for the acquired land. In reply, the appellant-respondent disputed the facts. He claimed himself to be in possession of the land. Even the mortgage was also denied. His claim was that he got the mortgage redeemed initially. However, keeping in view R.F.A. No. 1678 of 1989 [ Page numbers] the illegal entries contained in the revenue records, he again got the mortgage redeemed on 2.1.1981 on payment of Rs. 4,000/- to the mortgagee. The learned court below, while considering the claim of the parties, found that the plea set up by the appellant-respondent was totally misconceived. He was not able to prove redemption of mortgage and accordingly, the right to receive compensation was upheld in favour of the mortgagees. Learned counsel for the appellant-respondent reiterated the submissions made before the learned court below. While referring to receipt dated 2.1.1981, the submission was that merely because it was a photo copy, it did not mean that the same is not admissible. The stand was that the original had been given to the mortgagees which was not returned. He further submitted that in fact, earlier also the mortgage stood redeemed. However, as the entries in the revenue records were not corrected, he again paid the amount to Bhagat Gopal Dass to get the mortgage redeemed again. As is evident from the facts, noticed by the learned court below, the respondents-petitioners were coming in possession of the suit property as mortgagees from their father/forefathers and the mortgagors were predecessors-in- interest of the appellant-respondent. Once convincing evidence could not be produced on record to show that the mortgage was ever redeemed and the limitation therefor having expired, the appellant's right to get the same redeemed had been foreclosed and accordingly the mortgagees having become owners of the property were rightly declared to be entitled to receive the compensation on account of acquisition of land. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2008 mk