Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Gopal Son Of Sh. Mohan Dass And ... vs Financial Commissioner (Revenue) And ... on 3 June, 2011
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.12023 of 1990 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.12023 of 1990
Date of Decision. 03.06.2011
Madan Gopal son of Sh. Mohan Dass and others
......Petitioners
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government,
Haryana and others
.....Respondents
2. C.W.P. No.12033 of 1990 The Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited, Kurukshetra ......Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary to Government, Haryana and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Gorakhpuria, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 9.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
-.-
K. KANNAN J.
1. Both the writ petitions address the same issue on the tenability of cancellation of allotments made under the Evacuee Property Act that the allottee had, in the meanwhile after securing the allotment, brought about transfers bringing third party interest in the property. The petitioners are purchasers from the allottee and C.W.P. No.12023 of 1990 -2- interested in upholding the allotment even if it were to be conceded that the allotment had been secured by their respective vendors not in accordance with Rules. Their only strength in the pleas is their own bona fides in approach and when they had no reason to suspect that their vendor's allotment was unmerited or when they had not themselves participated in any misrepresentation or fraud or connived with the vendor to secure such allotment.
2. The petitioners staked a claim to the property that had been allotted to one Bhagwan Dass, who had sold the land measuring six bighas to sons of Nikka Ram, Om Parkash, Satnarain and Hari Ram. Om Parkash and others further transferred the land measuring 6 Kanals 2 Marlas in favour of the petitioners under the registered sale dded dated 11.10.1967. It is not in dispute that the purchasers took possession of the property. Six years later, the Chief Settlement Commissioner set aside the transfer of 6 bighas in favour of Bhagwan Dass and retained the allotment in favour of other allottees. This order was tested further in revision by the petitioners under Section 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. The order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who on remand again set aside the transfer of land in favour of Bhagwan Dass. The petitioners came on revision to the Government but the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary rejected the petitioners' revision petition.
3. The orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner under Annexures P-7 and P-8 are challenged on the ground that the petitioners themselves are bona fide transferees C.W.P. No.12023 of 1990 -3- and protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. As a measure of equity, the petitioners contended that they have raised constructions and made improvements by spending huge amounts. They questioned the power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to review the order made already making an allotment in favour of Bhagwan Dass as early as on 20.12.1961. The order setting it aside on 31.08.1987 literally made reopening an issue, which was finalized 26 years earlier.
4. The issue of bonafides of purchase and the right of a purchaser to hold of to the property despite the cancellation of allotment made earlier is squarely governed by a decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.(1996) 113 PLR 225. The facts are absolutely similar except that the original allotment was made in the 1962 and after the allottee had sold the property in the year 1968, the cancellation of the original allottment was made in the year 1976. Relying on an earlier judgment of this Court in Kali Ram and others Vs. Union of India (1976) 78 PLR 475, the Court held that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was bound to be invoked to the persons, who had been bonafide and the impermissibility of a State to cancel after fairly a length of time. The learned Judge also referred to the Division Bench ruling in State of Haryana Vs. Savitri Devi and Ors. 1986 PLJ 656 and Rattan Singh and another Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner Haryana and Ors.1978 PLJ 47 to hold that a situation like this would call for invoking Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, for the rights acquired by the innocent purchasers from ostensible owners cannot easily be blighted.
5. In this case, we have an additional situation of the purchasers C.W.P. No.12023 of 1990 -4- making substantial improvements in the property. In C.W.P. No.12033 of 1990, the Thanesar Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society has actually constructed residential houses for its Manager, Accountant and other staff and there are godowns and workshops for agricultural implements. All these constructions have been made on subsequent approvals from the Municipal Committees.
6. The impugned orders under these circumstances are bound to be set aside and the writ petitions are allowed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE June 03 , 2011 Pankaj*