CM No.5681-C of 2010 and ::1:: RSA No.1829 of 2010 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.5681-C of 2010 and RSA No.1829 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:13.05.2010 State of Haryana and another .. Appellants Versus Chattar Pal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.K.C.Bhatia, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) CM No.5681-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded in the application, same stands allowed and the delay of 140 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.1829 of 2010 (O & M) This appeal has been filed against the concurent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for declaration that they are owners in possession of land in dispute and for challenging the order of cancellation against their vendors. The land in dispute was originally under the ownership of big landowners and was allotted and was transferred to the landlless labourers, tenants and other eligible categories. As per the terms of allotment letter, the allottee had to deposit certain amount of money in instalments. However, despite the fact that the entire money was not deposited, the land was mutated in the name of the allottees. Admittedly, in the Revenue Record i.e. Jamabandi or the Mutation, the condition regarding payment of pending instalments etc. was not mentioned. The allottees sold the land to the respondents. CM No.5681-C of 2010 and ::2:: RSA No.1829 of 2010 (O & M) Subsequently, since the allottees had not made the necessary payments, the allotment was cancelled. It was this that was challenged by the respondents. Both the Courts below gave the benefit of the Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act to the respondents and decreed the suit. The following questions have been proposed:- (i) Whether the judgment/decree dated 26.2.2008 passed by the learned trial court and judment/decree dated 12.9.2009 passed by the learned Ist appellate court is contrary to the facts and law ? (ii) Whether the judgment/decree passed by both the learned courts below are based on perverse finding ? (iii) Whether the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in this case as plaintiffs/respondents had availed the remedy of appeal beore the Collector, Yamuna Nagar and the Revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division ? Questions No.1 and 2 are pure questions of fact and learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the respondents were not bona fide purchaser for value or that they were not entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and further he has not been able to persuade me that the said findings of the Courts below are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. As regards questions No.3, no argument has been raised. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 13, 2010 sukhpreet