Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2007 Date of Decision: 14.5.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Tarsem Singh & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. Sh. L.N. Verma, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendants' appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and the defendant-appellants have no right to auction the same and permanent injunction has been issued in favour of the plaintiffs by restraining the defendants from auctioning or interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise. The case of the defendants was that Ujagar Singh got allotted excess land fraudulently and the allotment of the excess share, which included the suit land, was cancelled on 15.8.1997 and the suit land was mutated in favour of the defendants. Even the appeal preferred by L.Rs. Of Ujagar Singh was dismissed and as such the defendants were well within their rights to put the suit land on auction, being the owners of the same. But, a perusal of judgments passed by the Courts below reveal that the plaintiffs were not Regular Second Appeal No. 4023 of 2007 2 party to the said appeal. Even otherwise, it is admitted position that the suit land was allotted to Ujagar Singh and at the time when the plaintiffs purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed on 7.1.1988 from Santokh Singh, the son of Ujagar Singh, the revenue record, as proved on record, reflected the ownership of Santokh Singh over the suit land. Admittedly, after the said purchase, the suit land was mutated in favour of plaintiffs vide mutation No.427 (Ex.P2), which was accepted by the revenue authorities on 21.3.1988. Even in the revenue record i.e. khasra girdawari (Ex.P3) for the year 2000-2001, the plaintiffs were recorded as owners in possession of the suit land. Taking into account all these facts, it has been rightly held that the plaintiffs are the bonafide purchaser and their rights have to be protected as per Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, it was not the case of the defendants that the said sale was not for consideration. Not only this, it is also not in dispute that prior to carry out the proceedings for restoration of possession of the suit land, no notice under Section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was issued. On plain reading of the provisions of Act ibid, it is emphatically clear that the competent authority was under obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person before seeking his ejectment from the property. But since this was not done in the case in hand, it has rightly been held that due to non compliance of principle of natural justice, the whole exercise carried out by the defendants stand vitiated. In totality, no fault could be found with the approached adopted by the Courts below in restraining the appellants from interfering in the possession and ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Therefore, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 14,2009 Jiten