Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

We have heard Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at some length. In the face of the settled principle that fraud vitiates everything, it is not possible for us to come in the aid of the petitioners as a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and without notice since the source of allotment is intrinsically bad. It may be that the Police has found the matter of allotment of more than one plot in the name of Dharamvir Singh, Assistant Commandant under reserve category as one of civil nature but with that we are hardly concerned. The petitioners would have their remedies against Dharamvir Singh in the manner they choose or are advised but it is not possible for us to restore ownership in favour of the petitioners by setting aside the legal and valid orders of the administrative authorities under Section 17 of the HUDA Act. The vendor suffered from latent disability to transfer the plot by having practiced fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in procuring such allotment from HUDA which was subsequently discovered and rescinded. In Smt. Niranjan Kaur and others vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Government, Punjab and others, AIR 2011 Punjab And Haryana 1, the Full Bench of this Court considered such an issue regarding a transferee's entitlement to protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act in the background of cancellation of an invalid allotment made under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and held that the 1954 Act is a Special Act and Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act though not applicable within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but its underlying principles would apply which are in consonance with equity, justice and good conscience would remain subservient to the special law and, therefore, Section 19 of the special Act which confers power on the Managing Officer or Managing Corporation to vary or cancel lease or allotment of any property acquired under the Act if such lease or allotment suffers from legal disabilities and flaws mentioned therein would operate. Since the cancellation was in accordance with the provisions of the special statute, it was held by the Full Bench of this Court that it would override the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, the transfer was procured by Dharamvir Singh by fraud and misrepresentation. If the basic transfer was fraudulently obtained, we do not see how Dharamvir Singh could pass good title to the petitioners in the absence of conscious knowledge on the part of the HUDA at the time when it permitted transfer under mistake of fact. If it is taken that the vendee had a right to contest as subsequent purchaser without notice and valuable consideration then, we have heard him on merits as well and are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot reap and retain unlawful benefits of an illegal allotment in the hands of the vendor/allottee. We would say this more emphatically because the transfer and allotment to the original purchaser/allottee was not of land from the open market but from reserved quota at concessional rates. The plot was public property prior to allotment and HUDA its custodian and any laxity shown to the petitioner would result in public fraud and deprivation of valuable land to a genuine member of the paramilitary forces for whom the reservation was earmarked.