CWP No. 4590 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4590 of 2005 Date of decision: December 24, 2008 Jaswant Singh and others ... Petitioners versus The Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Haryana Rehabilitation Department and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh. Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 4 -- Hemant Gupta, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 7.12.2004, Annexure P-4, whereby allotment of evacuee property in favour of Hira Singh was cancelled and the purchase of land by the petitioners was found to be not entitled to be protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( for short “the Act”). One Hira Singh was allotted land measuring 31 standard acres 12 units. In the year 1970, Buta Singh and Sucha Singh sons of Hira Singh made a representation for Dakhalkari rights in view of the payment made by their father in Pakistan on 4.4.1943. Additional land was allotted but it was CWP No. 4590 of 2005 [2] found that the money deposited was for acquisition of occupancy right and not the full ownership rights, therefore, allotment could not have been made. It was found that allotment of 53 Kanals 4 Marlas in village Sayana Saida, Tehsil Pehowa, is illegal. As per petitioners, they have purchased the land vide sale deed dated 5.5.1995 from Sucha Singh and Buta Singh. It was found that the petitioners cannot claim themselves to be bona fide purchasers under section 41 of the Act. The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are bona fide purchasers from vendees for valuable consideration and, thus, sale in their favour is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable for the reasons recorded in Letters Patent Appeal No. 184 of 2004 titled Subhash Chand and others vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue and others, decided vide separate order of even date. For the reasons recorded in LPA No. 184 of 2004, the present writ petition is dismissed. ( Hemant Gupta) Judge December 24, 2008 ( Nawab Singh) ks Judge