IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.323 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2008 State of Haryana through its Collector, Ambala .....Petitioner VERSUS Faquir Chand ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Plaintiff, Faquir Chand, has filed this suit against the petitioner- Government, seeking declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in possession of the land described in the head note and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property by way of auction etc. The facts, as averred, are that the respondent-plaintiff had purchased the suit land from previous allottee, Chuhar Singh in the year 1996. Chuhar Singh had been legal owner having been allotted this land. Subsequently, in the year 2002, the allotment in favour of Chuhar Singh was cancelled. In this background, it was to be seen whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to protection being a bonafide purchaser for consideration. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner-State that as per the CIVIL REVISION NO.323 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: general rules and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the person can not confer a better title than what he has. That may be so but if the vendor has given a bonafide impression of deciding a title at the relevant time, he would remain a bonafide transferee, when the title of the vendor is declared defective later. It has been further observed that bonafide transferee of evacuee land from persons to whom allotment was made is entitled to protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, though it may otherwise not applicable to evacuee land. This observation would flow from the decision in the case of Ranbir Singh and others Vs. Rattan Singh and others, 1982 All India Land Laws Reporter 605. Reference is also made to the case of Roop Lal (Dead) by L.Rs Vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana, 2001 (4) Recent Civil Reports 812 to observe that once allotment had been made and conveyance deed executed, exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (for short, “the Act”) was not justified. The lower Appellate Court further went on to notice that the respondent- plaintiff was not given an opportunity of being heard before the Chief Settlement Commissioner while entertaining reference under Section 24 of the Act. If he had been so heard, he was entitled to point out that he was a bonafide purchaser. In this regard, as observed by the appellate Court, reliance can be placed on the case of Labh Singh Vs. Chuni Lal (died) and others, 1981 Revenue Law Reporter 283, wherein it was held that order of cancellation was nonest and void qua the transferee where the cancellation was done by the Chief CIVIL REVISION NO.323 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Settlement Commissioner under Section 24 of the Act without impleading or hearing the transferee. Considering these facts, the appellate Court has rightly observed that prima-facie case in favour of the respondent-plaintiff was made out and balance of convenience was also in his favour. Certainly, respondent-plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the property is put to auction, of which he is a bonafide purchaser. To balance the equity, the appellate Court has given liberty to the petitioner to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the present revision is accordingly dismissed. January 21 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE