CWP No.9845 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9845 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 29, 2011 RANJIT SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, ...RESPONDENTS PUNJAB AND OTHERS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. R.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. REETA KOHLI, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. MR. S.K. GARG, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J. 1. The writ petition involves a dispute between two private individuals clamoring for rights of property which was dealt with as surplus under Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (For short 'the Act'). The rival claimants before authority were respectively a person who had been an allottee of the property treated as surplus under the Land Reforms Act and the person who claimed as purchaser from the original big land owner Baljinder Singh whose land holding was declared as being in surplus of the ceiling limit. After several rounds of litigation the Financial Commissioner (Irrigation & Power), Punjab passed the impugned order upholding the claim of the allottee of the surplus land on the ground that the rival contender Ranjit Singh was not a bona fide purchaser and the original big land owner Baljinder Singh had created a fraudulent sale only with an intent CWP No.9845 of 1990 -2- to defeat the provisions of the Act knowing fully well that he was attracted to the provisions of the Act. In so holding, the Commissioner was in agreement with the view taken by the Collector that allotment of property to one Joginder Singh did not suffer from any infirmity. 2. To certain more facts: The property had been declared as surplus on 25.6.1976. The property had been actually delivered on 12.12.1977, to the allottee and one Piara Singh who was cultivating the land and who was a lessee at the time did not raise any objection. The allottee had also made the first installment of the price determined by the Government. The Financial Commissioner, at the time of passing of the order, had still found that the original land owner acquired some lands by way of inheritance and decree of civil Court and under such circumstances the Commissioner directed that Collector to re-determine afresh the surplus area of original land owner Baljinder Singh. The Collector whose order was the subject of revision to the Commissioner had actually taken note of the fact that the land reforms had prescribed an appointed day under Section 3 (1) as 24.1.1971 and any transfer of property made subsequent to the appointed day and before commencement of the Act, namely, 2.4.1973, when it was published in the Government Gazette after receiving assent of the President, was required to take the property so transferred during the intervening period as also within the extent of the land owner. Section 4(5) of the Act specifically states that in determining the land sold subsequent to the appointed day must be taken into account as if such land has not been transferred. The bona fide of such a transferee must be tested in the light of the evidence which was adduced and the Collector had found that the subsequent purchaser was not even in possession of the property at the CWP No.9845 of 1990 -3- relevant time when the allottee took possession of the property and it was in the hands of somebody else than the person who claimed to be a purchaser. This was taken as an instance to show that the purchase itself was not bona fide and it was merely a devise by the original land owner to defeat the provisions of the Act and to screen the property from the reach of the Act from being declared surplus. The finding of such a fact in issue cannot be interfered in a writ petition, laid down in a decision of this Court in Balbir Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeal) Punjab, (1997) 1 RCR (Civil) 208. 2. The decision of the Collector and the Commissioner are under circumstances perfectly justified and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 29, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE