R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Rajinder and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had purchased 13 marlas of land by way of sale deed dated 26.8.1996 from Kaka Ram, who had been allotted the suit land vide allotment letter dated 18.12.1988. Mutation No.2391 dated 15.1.1989 was sanctioned in favour of the vendors. Mutation No.3054 dated 24.9.1996 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on the basis of sale deed dated 26.8.1996. Plaintiffs were handed over the possession of the said property. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 2 2 also purchased the land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas and 9 kanals 9 marlas vide sale deeds dated 25.2.1987 and 8.1.1988 from Khema, Kamla Kesar, Bimla and Nathu Ram, children of Kishna, who had been allotted the said property vide allotment order dated 11.10.1980. Mutation No.2003 dated 14.11.1984 was sanctioned in favour of the vendors. After the death of allottee Krishna, the land was inherited by his legal representatives and mutation was sanctioned in favour of his legal representatives on 7.2.1987 qua the said property. On the basis of the sale deeds dated 25.2.1987 and 8.1.1988, mutation No.2248 and 2308 were sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Possession of the said land was handed over to plaintiffs No.1 and 2 by the vendors at the time of execution of the sale deeds. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 further purchased 15 kanals 11 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 1.7.1987 from Dalip and Baljit Singh. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 also purchased 7 kanals 16 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 10.8.1987 from Thana Singh and Dalip Singh. Vendors Baljit Singh and Thana Singh had purchased the said land from Lachhman Singh vide registered sale deed dated 25.5.1983 and mutation No.2059 was sanctioned in their favour on 15.6.1985. Lachhman Singh was allotted the land vide allotment letter dated 11.10.1988 and mutation No.1895 dated 8.1.1983 was sanctioned in his favour. Mutation Nos.2272 and 2273 were sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on 1.12.1987. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 further purchased the land measuring 27 kanals 12 marlas vide sale deed dated 6.5.1988 from Balbir Singh. Gauri Shankar, father of Balbir Singh had been allotted the said land vide allotment letter dated 11.10.1980 and mutation was sanctioned in his R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 3 favour in this regard. After the death of Gauri Shankar, the land was inherited by his son Balbir Singh and mutation was sanctioned in this regard in favour of Balbir Singh. Mutation No.2342 dated 8.5.1988 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on the basis of sale deed dated 6.5.1988. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 further purchased the land measuring 10 kanals 18 marlas vide sale deed dated 22.2.1991 from Ramzan, who had been allotted the land vide allotment letter dated 26.2.1981. Mutation No.2585 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 on 13.3.1991. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 further purchased 5 kanals 13 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 15.11.1996 from Ram Singh, who had been allotted the land vide allotment order dated 26.12.1981. Mutation No.3099 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No1. and 2 on 9.3.1997. Plaintiff No.3 purchased 14 kanals 6 marlas and 8 kanals of land vide sale deeds dated 16.12.1991 and 27.5.1992 from Bhura, who had been allotted the land vide allotment order dated 11.10.1980. On the basis of the said sale deeds, mutations were sanctioned in favour of plaintiff No.3 on 24.3.1992 and 9.6.1992. Plaintiff No.4 purchased 31 kanals 2 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 16.12.1997 from Chawli, Surasti, Guddi, Bailma, Manphool and Mahabir, legal representatives of Gobind, who had been allotted the land vide allotment order dated 11.10.1980. Mutation No.3530 was sanctioned in favour of plaintiff No.4 on the basis of the said sale deed on 19.9.2001. The plaintiffs were the bonafide purchasers for consideration. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 28.7.2003 in ROR No.118 of 2001-02 was without jurisdiction. R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 4 Defendants No.1 and 2, in their written statement averred that the allotment order dated 18.12.1988 in favour of Sunder Ram had not been touched vide order dated 28.7.2003. The allotment in favour of Krishana was wrong as per Section 21 (2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Lands Holdings Act, 1972 ('the Act' for short). The plaintiffs were not owner of the said land on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour. The area purchased by the plaintiffs fell within the surplus pool and vested in the State under Section 12 (3) of the Act. The land was got allotted by the allottees by concealing material facts and hence, the allotment in their favour was bad in the eyes of law. Consequently, the sale deeds executed by the said allottees were also illegal. The Financial Commissioner, on re- examination of the facts, had rightly held that the allotments in favour of the allottees had not been correctly made. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint as bonafide purchasers as alleged? OPP. 2.Whether the impugned order dated 28.7.2003 passed by Financial Commissioner is without jurisdiction, against law of limitation, violative of principles of natural justice, as alleged OPP 3. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 5 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the land was allotted to different persons by the Prescribed Authority. The Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 28.7.2003 observed that the allotments were based on infirmities and illegalities. The Prescribed Authority was directed to look into the matter afresh and then decide whether there was any infirmity or not at the time of allotment to the allottees. The Prescribed Authority had not initiated any action in pursuance of order dated 28.7.2003. Learned first Appellate Court rightly observed that the plaintiffs could agitate the matter as and when the allotment to the vendors was cancelled. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 28.7.2003 could have been challenged by filing a writ petition and the civil suit was not maintainable. Section 26 of the Act reads as under:- Bar of jurisdiction :- (1)No civil court shall have jurisdiction to (a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which R.S.A.No. 4212 of 2009 6 affects the right of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or (b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority. (2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Authority made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be called in question in any court.” Thus, as per the above provision, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be challenged in a Civil Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 20, 2011 anita