JUDGMENT
Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. Kundan
Singh and two others have come to this court in this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution for getting order Annexure P-2 dated 21-5-1984, passed by the Tehsildar Sales, quashed by which their request for the purchase of land in their unauthorised possession was declined and the revision against the same was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order Annexure P-3.
2. The petitioners alleged to be the bona fide vendees in regard to 11 Bighas 19 Biswas of land detailed in the writ petition from Tehal Singh son of Kartar Singh allottee. It is alleged in the petition that they learnt in the end of 1983 that the allotment made to the vendor’s father was cancelled and after
coming to know of the same, an application was .filed before the Tehsiidar Sales for purchasing the land as occupants under certain Government instructions, which application was rejected vide order Annexure P-2. The reason given for not allowing the petitioners to purchase the land at the reserve price is that for the period they remained in unauthorised possession of the land, they were directed to deposit the Lagan but failed to do so and that by then the area had become urban and the press note was not applicable to the urban land. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that they are the bona fide purchasers and after 19 years the allotment could not be cancelled and that they were entitled to hearing.
3. The main relief claimed in the writ petition is for quashing orders Annexure P/2 and P/3 and for the issue of such other writ, order or direction as may be deemed proper on the facts of the case. The order of cancellation of the allotment is not placed on the record. The writ petition, as drafted, is totally confused and, therefore, in the absence of the order of cancellation of allotment, we confine it only to the matters on which the orders Annexure P/3 and P/2 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and Tehsildar Sales are challenged before us.
4. At the time of admission, reliance was placed on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Mohinder Kaur v. Financial Commr. (Taxation) Punjab, 1980 Pun LJ 463, for the proposition that the nature of the area could not be changed later on to see the entitlement of the allottee. The Motion Bench doubted the correctness of the decision and admitted the writ petition for a regular hearing by a Division Bench.
5. The facts in the aforesaid decided case are totally different from the facts of the present case. There the excess land in possession of the allottee was sought to be purchased. In some suitable case the correctness of the decision would be considered. Here, the allotment was made in favour of Kartar Singh. The allotment made to him has been cancelled and that matter is not directly in challenge before us as the
order of cancellation has not been placed on the record. Moreover, Kartar Singh or his son could not transfer the land as an allottee unless the proprietary rights or ownership rights under a Sanad had been granted to them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 as displaced persons. There is neither any plea nor any proof that Kartar Singh or his son was ever granted such ownership rights. That is how the petitioners have been considered to be in unauthorised possession of the land and after accepting this petition, they applied to the Tehsildar Sales for, transferring the land to them as unauthorised occupants under the Press Note. It is not pleaded nor shown to us that on the day the petitioners made an application for transferring the land to them, the area was not urban. It is also not disputed before us that urban land cannot be transferred under the Press-note. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and dismiss the same but without any order as to costs.
