CWP No. 9711 of 2003 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9711 of 2003
Date of decision: December 24, 2008
Raghu Nath and others ... Petitioners
versus
The Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Haryana
and others ... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh.
Present: Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondents.
--
Hemant Gupta, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated
8.4.2003, Annexure P-7, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to
Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of
Central Government under section 33 of the Displaced Persons
(Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954.
One Surat Singh was allotted land in village Khera, Tehsil
Siwani, District Bhiwani, as a displaced person. The said allotment was
cancelled on 23.12.1987. The petitioners have purchased land measuring 40
kanals out of the land allotted to Surat Singh vide registered sale deed dated
20.04.1984. Land measuring 137 Kanals 3 Marlas was also sold by the
CWP No. 9711 of 2003 [2]
General Attorney of Surat Singh.
Earlier, the petitioners filed a civil suit but the same was
dismissed on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of the Court in terms of
Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and section 13 of the Village Common
Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an
application for setting aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner
which was dismissed. The petition filed by the petitioners under section 33
of the Act was dismissed by the Commissioner and Secretary to
Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of
Central Government, vide order dated 8.4.2003, Annexure P-7, which is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
In the present writ petition, the sole argument raised by learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the sale is protected under section 41 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, having purchased the land from the
allottee for valuable consideration and in a bona fide manner. 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