IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3974 of 2011 Date of Decision:4.7.2011 Such Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Smt. Sarabjit Kaur .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. J.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is revision against the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Guardian Court whereby the application of the respondent to sell land of her minor son under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was allowed. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent could not have sold the land of the minor Raj Sukhwinder Singh. Further the land was purchased by the petitioners out of the sale price of the land of the share of the petitioners in village Meeran Kot and that the share of the minor in village Meeran Kot has not been sold. The petitioners are, therefore, looking after the welfare of the minor more than his mother. Moreover, in case, the respondent buys the land in the name of minor in some other village, the same will be cultivated by an outsider and the minor will find it difficult to get back the possession of the land as the law is in favour of the tenants. Heard. It has been recorded by the Guardian Judge, Gurdaspur, in her order dated 20.5.2011 that the mother of the minor i.e. respondent herein has purchased 40 Kanals of land in the name of minor. The mutation has also been sanctioned in favour of the minor. Thus, it is evident that the mother is looking after the interest C.R. No.3974 of 2011 -2- of the minor and in fact has already purchased land in his name. Besides, agreement to sell Mark-A has been entered which shows that the mother is planning to buy more land in the name of the minor. There is nothing on record to show that the property bought in the name of the minor is of a lesser value than the property proposed to be sold. Further, the sale deed A-2, mutation A-1 and the agreement to sell Mark-A in favour of the minor shows that the interest of the minor in the hands of her mother i.e. respondent is safe. It is evident that the reason why the mother is selling the land of the minor and buying another piece of land in another village is that the relations between the mother of the minor and his parental uncle and grand-mother are not cordial. Thus, there is apprehension in the mind of the mother that it is not easy to look after or cultivate the land in a hostile atmosphere. Moreover, the land already purchased in the name of the minor Raj Sukhwinder Singh can be sold by Smt. Sarabjit Kaur-mother only after obtaining the requisite permission from the Court. As such, the interest of the minor is safe. Thus, nothing has been pointed out which may enable this Court to interfere in the well reason order/judgment dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Guardian Court. No other argument was raised. Dismissed. 4.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE