RSA No. 876 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 2602-C of 2008 and RSA No. 876 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 20, 2009 State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants Versus Puran Singh ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondent. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 2602-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, the delay of 61 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 876 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent granting him a decree for declaration that he had become owner of the land purchased by RSA No. 876 of 2008 2 him from Joginder Singh and that till the time of sale the allotment stood in favour of aforesaid Joginder Singh. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the sale deed Ex.P1 is effective in the absence of confirmation of transfer from the Custodian department in accordance with Section 40 of the Act, 1950? ii) Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Section 46 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950? iii) Whether the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2007 is sustainable in the eyes of law? I find that the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly held that wrong entry in the Jamabandi would not create any right. She has also considered the question of jurisdiction and has rightly held that the present dispute does not fall within the categories provided in Section 46 of the Act of 1950 or Section 36 of the Act of 1954. Learned lower Appellate Court has also rightly held that Section 40 of the Act of 1950 is not attracted to the present case. It would be seen that the respondent-plaintiff did not challenge any action of the Custodian so as to attract Sections 46/36 and further that Section 40 applies only to property which is subsequently declared to be evacuee land. In this view of the matter the questions proposed are decided against the appellants and consequently the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the CMs stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 20, 2009 sunita RSA No. 876 of 2008 3