CWP No.8287 of 1987 & other connected matters IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 28, 2011 (1) CWP No.8287 of 1987 Meet Ram and others …..Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others. ….Respondents (2) CWP No.4878 of 1988 Meet Ram and others …..Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab and others. ….Respondents (3) CWP No.11797 of 1990 Meet Ram and others …..Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3 Mr. G.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP No.8287 of 1987 Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP No.4878 of 1988 None for respondents No.4 to 15 in CWP No.11797 of 1990 - CWP No.8287 of 1987 & other connected matters K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. The counsel appearing for the contesting private respondent in CWP Nos.8287 of 1987 & 4878 of 1988 alone is present before the Court. There is no representation for the petitioner(s) in all the cases. 2. The learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent, who is an allottee under the Punjab Package Deal Property Act of 1976 and corresponding Rules contends that all the cases were clubbed together and posted for hearing in view of the fact that they addressed a common question of law of whether the transferee of properties from persons who claimed to be allottees under the 1976 Act could plead bonafides in the respective purchasers to fend off the rightful claims of subsequent allottees by the State directly in recognition of the rights of such allotments under the Act. All the writ petitioners were making their claims of bonafides of the purchases, notwithstanding the cancellation of allotments made, while the authorities were contending that such cancellation became necessary for effectively dealing with the property that stood vested in the State Govt. and available for disposal for the identified classes of beneficiaries. Through the impugned order, it was observed that the petitioners were all purchasers from allottees whose allotments had admittedly been set aside. 3. As far as the property in CWP No.4878 of 1988 is concerned, learned counsel for the 4th respondent contends that the petitioner who is claiming from an alleged allottee Bhan Singh could not have asserted any title in view of the fact that Bhan Singh had been responsible for forging the signature of Tehsildar and securing to himself a forged letter of allotment, on the basis of which he had falsely asserted title and purported to have effected - CWP No.8287 of 1987 & other connected matters a sale in favour of the petitioner. The authorities has reasoned that there was no question of bona fide in a case of fraud and forging practiced and even the amendment that came about subsequently by introduction of Section of Section 4B of the Punjab Package Deal Property Disposal Rules, 1976, the protection was not extended to allotment which was being cancelled on account of fraud, concealment or mis-representation of material facts. The protection cannot extend to a purchaser from allottees whose allotments have been cancelled on account of fraud, concealment or misrepresentation of material facts. In this case it is not merely a case of fraud but allegedly a case of forgery. 4. The allotment made in favour of both the respondents is, therefore, affirmed the challenge to order rejecting the claim of the petitioner as a bonafide purchaser ought to fail. I will find therefore no reason to take a different view and dismiss writ petition No.4878 of 1988. 5. Two other cases CWP Nos.8287 of 1987 and 11797 of 1990 address the same issue relating to the validity of the allotments made by the State afresh after the cancellation of the allotments of properties in the name of the vendors of respective purchasers. The reasoning adopted in CWP No.4878 of 1988 will apply with equal force in these two cases and the writ petitions are required to be dismissed. Accordingly these two petitions are also dismissed. 28.11.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE - CWP No.8287 of 1987 & other connected matters -