-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 21, 2011 Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988 State of Punjab through Tehsildar Sales, Sultanpur Lodhi and another ... Appellants VERSUS Piara Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988. against the defendants-appellants for injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from putting the land in dispute measuring 80 Kanals 1 Marla to auction was decreed. The sole question involved in this appeal is - whether the subsequent transferees are absolved of the responsibility from going through the sale certificate / agreement / `Intkalnama' issued under the provisions of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short `the Act') which expressly prohibits the sale within a period of ten years. The land in dispute was the ownership of the State Government. It was put to restricted auction and was consequently given to one Jita Balmiki on 20.12.1965 vide sale certificate / agreement / `Intkalnama' Exhibit D.2. The whole of the auction amount was paid by Jita on 12.4.1971 and a note on the bottom of document Exhibit D.2 was scribed on that date i.e 12.4.1971 that the auction purchaser shall not be entitled to sell the land for a period of ten years. Thus, as per the sale certificate / `Intkalnama' (Exhibit D.2), this sale of the disputed land in favour of Jita was restricted and he could not alienate the same to anybody within a period of ten years from the date of allotment. However, Jita disposed of the suit land in contravention of the sale certificate (Exhibit D.2) in favour of plaintiffs-respondents etc. Therefore, the Chief Sales Commissioner cancelled the allotment of land in favour of Jita vide his order dated 5.2.1979 (Exhibit D.1). Both the Courts below held -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988. that the plaintiffs-respondents are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land without notice as the revenue record placed on record does not in any way contain any entry that Jita, auction purchaser of the suit land, could not dispose of the same within ten years of the purchase of the land by him in auction as has been mentioned in `Intkalnama' Exhibit D.2. It has been further observed by both the Courts below that no doubt in the document Exhibit D.2 condition has been incorporated that Jita would not be entitled to dispose of the land for a period of ten years to a non-Harijan, but this condition does not find mention in the revenue record consisting of Jamabandies Exhibits P.A, P.B and P.C. It may be mentioned here that Jita Ram had earlier sold a part of the suit land to one Gurparshad, who had later on sold the same to the plaintiffs-respondents and rest of the suit land had been directly sold by Jita to the plaintiffs-respondents vide different sale deeds. Both the Courts held the plaintiffs- respondents to be owners in possession of the suit land being bona fide purchasers without notice for consideration. Before the Courts below, it was admitted case of the parties that Jita Ram had sold the land allotted to him vide `Intkalnama' (Exhibit D.2) within ten years of the said allotment to him; meaning thereby the land in dispute had not ceased to be covered under the provisions of the Act. As such, the sale of the suit land had been made by Jita in contravention of the provisions of `Intkalnama'/Sale Certificiate (Exhibit D.2). It is also worth noticing -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988. that Jita did not challenge the order dated 5.2.1979 (Exhibit D.1) passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner. Besides, none of the plaintiffs/respondents was in picture nor had secured any interest in the suit land when the original sale in favour of Jita had been cancelled by the Chief Sales Commissioner vide order dated 5.2.1979 (Exhibit D.1). As such, there was no occasion for the Chief Sales Commissioner to afford the plaintiffs/respondents any opportunity of hearing in the proceedings culminating into order dated 5.2.1979. When the order dated 5.2.1979 (Exhibit D.1) was passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner, the land in dispute was covered under the provisions of the Act. In the case of Amar Nath Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 (2) RRR 273 : 1992 PLJ 381, where the land was covered under the Act, it was held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bedi as below:- “ On a reference under Section 11 for cancellation of auction sale on the ground of violation of conditions of auction within the time stipulated in the sale certificate, the Government or the authorities empowered to act in its behalf can cancel the auction sale. Subsequent transferee who purchases such property without verifying the remarks in the revenue record and sale certificate regarding any embargo on the -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 410 of 1988. sale, cannot be considered to be a bona fide purchaser. No protection can be claimed under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.” What has been held by this Court in Amar Nath 's case (supra), applies on all fours to the facts of the instant case. Thus, the question involved in this appeal is answered in favour of the defendants-appellants. In view of the above, this appeal succeeds. The same is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 21, 2011. JUDGE ak