Sadha Singh and Another vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana and Others

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.—Sadha Singh and Virsa Singh through this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India, impugned the orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, cancelling the allotment in favour of Ganda Mal in village Megha Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Karnal.

Ganda Mal son of Hakim had been allotted 3 standard acres 9-3/4 units of land each in villages Megha Majra and Nahar Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Karnal. He was entitled to allotment atone place either at Megha Majra or Nahar Majra. The Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer cancelled the allotment in favour of Ganda Mal in village Nahar Majra vide his order dated the 18th of May, 1964. It may be mentioned here that Ganda Mal had already sold this land to Amar Singh, Respondent No. 5. It seems Respondent No. 5 bad not been heard at this stage.

Shri Baj Singh, Assistant Registrar-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, made a recommendation on the 17th of July, 1965 to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab that permanent rights conferred on Ganda Mal in respect cf? standard acres 93/4 units of land in village Megha Majra be set aside because he was holding double allotment. This reference was supported by Amar Singh, who was a vendee from Ganda Mal of the land in village Nahar Majra. From the orders, it transpired that Ganda Mal did not appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Sadha Singh and Virsa Singh, who had purchased this land from Ganda Mal were not impleaded as parties. Consequently, they were not heard by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. He, however, accepted the reference and set aside the permanent rights conferred on Ganda Mal of the land Measuring 3 standard acres 9 3/4 units in village Megha Majra. Coming to know about this order on 1st of November, 1965, the Petitioners filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, for the review of his order dated the 16th of August, 1965, by which the permanent rights in favour of Ganda Mal had been cancelled. This application of the Petitioners for review was turned down by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated the 23rd of January, 1967. Aggrieved by these two orders, the Petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

The official Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 have not put in written statements and have not even contested the writ petition in this Court Amar Singh, who is himself a transferee from Ganda Mal of the land in village Nahar Majra has put in a written statement and contused the writ petition.

Mr. G.C. Garg, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has argued that the permanent rights had been conferred by a competent authority in the land in dispute in favour of Ganda Mai. He was shown as an owner in the revenue record. The Petitioners bona fide believing Ganda Ma to be the owner of this land purchased the land in dispute on the 2nd of June, 19 8, for valuably consideration, obviously, there was no defect in the title of Ganda Mai. The officers of the Government allotted this land to Ganda Mal on the basis of the allotment orders his name was entered in the revenue records as an owner. The Government and its officers consented to this state of affairs. This remained in vogue for a number of years. Under these circumstances, it can be legitimately claimed by the Petitioners that they were bonafide purchasers of the lands in dispute for valuable consideration. Therefore, the authorities of the Rehabilitation Department could not cancel the allotment and retrieve this land from the Petitioners in view of the clear mandate of Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act. The matter is not res Integra This Court has in chain of decisions held that bona fide transferees from persons on whom permanent rights had been conferred in evacuee land have the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. See in this connection Sh. Damodar v. Chief Settlement Commissioner L.P.A. No. 181 of 1972, decided on the 18th of September, 1975 Kali Ram aid Ors. v. union of India 1976 P.L.R. 475 Rattan Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana 1978 P.L.J. 47 and Achhra Singh v. State of Punjab 1979 P.L.J. 278. Under these circumstances, the Petitioners as also Sh. Amar Singh, Respondent No. 5, are bonafide purchasers for consideration from Ganda Mal alias Ganda Singh, Ganda Mal was the owner of this land when he sold his lands to these persons. He was shown as an owner in the revenue record. In any case, there is no doubt he was an ostensible owner.

For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition and hold that the Petitioners are bonafide purchasers for consideration and purchase in question by the Petitioners is valid and as such they cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute in spite of the orders passed by the Chief settlement Commissioner, Annexure D and F. Since there has been no opposition, there will be no order as to costs. In fairness to the learned Counsel I have not decided the other points raised by the learned Counsel in view of my decision on the first point.

In view of the decision in the main writ Petition, Misc. Application No. 3604 of 1976 is dismissed as infructuous.