CWP No. 9443 of 2004 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9443 of 2004
Date of decision: December 9443, 2008
Onkar Mal and others ... Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh.
Present: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for respondents No.1 and 2
Shri Dinesh Ghai, Advocate
for respondents No. 17 to 21, 23 and 24.
--
Hemant Gupta, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
27.01.2004, Annexure P-9, whereby allotment in favour of original allottee
Surat Lal was cancelled and purchase of land from Surat Lal was found to
be not protected as vendor could not convey better title than what he had. It
has been found that Surat Lal did not possess any land in Pakistan at the
time of partition of the country, therefore, the allotment of land to Surat Lal
was not tenable. The said allotment was cancelled vide different orders
passed between 28.01.1957 to 29.03.1962 but Surat Lal never challenged
the said orders till he died in the year 1976. It was in the year 1978 that
CWP No. 9443 of 2004 [2]
Bhagwan Dass son of Surat Lal moved an application on 19.12.1978 for
delivery of possession of land allotted in the name of his father Surat Lal in
village Nigana, District Bhiwani or alternative allotment, which was
allowed on 21.07.1981. Such allotment was finally quashed vide order dated
27.01.2004, Annexure P-9, passed by the Commissioner & Secretary to
Govt. Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of Central
Government.
The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that
they are bona fide purchasers from the vendees for valuable consideration
and, thus, sale in their favour is protected under section 41 of the Transfer
of Property Act, 1882. The argument raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners is not sustainable for the reasons recorded in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 184 of 2004 titled Subhash Chand and others vs. The
Financial Commissioner Revenue and others, decided vide separate order
of even date.
For the reasons recorded in LPA No. 184 of 2004, the present
writ petition is dismissed.
( Hemant Gupta)
Judge
December 24, 2008 ( Nawab Singh)
ks Judge