IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5282 of 1987 Date of Decision : October 29, 2010. Smt. Jangir Kaur (deceased) through LRs. ...... Petitioners. Versus. The State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others. ..... Respondents CWP No. 5328 of 1987 Mukand Singh (deceased) through LRs. ...... Petitioners. Versus. The State of Haryana through the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present:- Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners (in both cases). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. 5282 of 1987 and 5328 of 1987, arising out of the same controversy and involving similar facts. To dictate the order, facts are taken from CWP No. 5282 of 1987. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 24.01.1977, vide which allotment/sale of land in their favour, by Tehsildar (Sales) Hisar, on 02.02.1969, was ordered to be cancelled. Further challenge is to an order dated 28.08.1981, vide which their revision petition alongwith 11 other revision petitions filed by the land owners, who were similarly situated, was dismissed. Still further the petitioners have laid challenge to an order dated 27.12.1982, passed by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Sirsa, forfeiting the amount, already paid by them and ordering resumption CWP No. 5282 of 1987 and connected case -2- of the property and further to sell it through auction. As per facts on record, land measuring 4.13 standard acres was allotted to one Ram Lal son of Wadhawa Singh. His allotment was cancelled on 09.02.1959 being a fraudulent one. In the meantime, the said Ram Lal had already sold the above land to the petitioners and 11 other land owners. At that stage, Tehsildar (Sales), Hisar, on 02.02.1969, made an offer to the petitioners to purchase the disputed property against the reserved price. The petitioners accepted the same and on payment of price quoted by the department, sale deed was executed in their favour on 08.04.1970. Mutation was sanctioned on 13.07.1979 in their name. Thereafter, it appears that in the year 1979, a reference was made by the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, by stating that transfer of land in favour of the petitioners was contrary to the Government instructions. The Settlement Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners and other land owners, who had purchased land from the said Ram Lal. Vide Order dated 24.01.1977, instead of cancelling their allotment, they were directed to purchase the land on payment of the market price. The petitioners challenged that order, however, their revision petition alongwith 11 other revision petitions of similarly situated land owners was dismissed by the competent authority, vide Order dated 28.08.1981. Vide an ex-parte order dated 27.12.1982, on petitioners' not depositing the amount of market price, the money already paid by them was forfeited, land was resumed and its sale was ordered through open auction. Entries to that extent were made in the revenue record. At that stage, the petitioners and 11 other land owners came to this Court. One Arjan Singh, who was similarly situated and was a party in the orders impugned in this writ petition, came to this Court by filing CWP No. 4139 of 1987, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on CWP No. 5282 of 1987 and connected case -3- 16.04.1991, orders impugned in the writ petition were quashed, the land sold to Arjan Singh and four others was restored to them by observing as under (1993 Vol.-I PLR 141) :- “4. The action of the official respondent to say the least is wholly illegal. Admittedly, land measuring 4.30 acres was allotted to Shri Ram Lal. The allotment was cancelled on February 9, 1959. Prior to the cancellation, the allottee had transferred the land for valuable consideration to the petitioners. The department called upon the petitioners to repurchase the land from it on the reserved price. The petitioners accepted the offer. The department executed sale deeds dated May 27, 1970 in favour of the petitioners. Mutations No. 412 dated July 3, 1977, 327 dated June 11, 1973, 326 dated June 11, 1973 and 328 dated June 11, 1973 were duly sanctioned in their favour on the basis of the sale deeds. After a lapse of many years, reference was made to the Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the registered sale deeds duly executed in favour of the vendee/petitioners on May 27, 1970. The Settlement Commissioner did not cancel the sale deeds since the action would have resulted in immense hardships to the vendees. He, however, directed that the land be re-transferred to the vendees on the market price. Moreover he passed the order without hearing the vendee-petitioners. He issued notice to one of the vendees Saudagar Singh, who appeared before him. No notice was issued to the petitioners. Any order prejudicial to the interest of the party passed without hearing him is void. Pursuant to the order of Settlement Commissioner, the Naib Tehsildar assessed the market price and asked the petitioners to deposit the same and get the sale deeds executed in their favour. Since they refused to pay the market price of the land as assessed by the Naib Tehsildar, the sale price paid by them vide sale deeds dated May 27, 1970 was forfeited to the Government and the property was ordered to be sold by public auction. 5. not printed. CWP No. 5282 of 1987 and connected case -4- 6. The reference by the Department to the Settlement Commissioner was wholly illegal and uncalled for. The petitioners had initially purchased the property from the allottee for consideration. There is nothing on the record to suggest that they were not entitled to the protection of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. They accepted the department's offer to purchase the land on the reserved price and the sale deeds were duly registered in their favour. They acquired a valid title in the land. The settled rights could not be unsettled by the department by making a reference to the Settlement Commissioner to cancel the sale deeds under departmental instructions. The petitioners paid sale price twice over. First, they paid it to the allottee and thereafter to the department. No omission or negligence or lack of bona fide has been attributed to them. A document of title validly executed in favour of the petitioners could only be cancelled in accordance with law and not otherwise. A valid title acquired by the petitioners under the Sale Deeds could not be set aside by resorting to departmental instructions. After the execution of the Sale Deeds a binding contract has come into existence between the State and the petitioners. Any of the parties aggrieved against the binding contract can avoid it in accordance with law not by taking resort to the departmental instructions alleged to have been issued by the State Government. The order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that the land be sold to the petitioners at the market price thus cannot be sustained. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under which the revision filed by the petitioners was rejected is not only unjust but also is patently illegal. The transfer by public auction in favour of respondent No. 5 being wholly without jurisdiction cannot be sustained.” This Court is convinced that the matter is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the ratio of judgment in the case of Arjan Singh (supra). CWP No. 5282 of 1987 and connected case -5- Learned State counsel has failed to distinguish the facts of abovesaid case so far as facts of the present case are concerned. When notice of motion was issued, dis-possession of the petitioners was stayed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were in possession since from the date they had purchased the land from the original allottee, namely, Ram Lal. This Court feels that after such a long period, it would not be desirable to un-settle the petitions. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned orders and subsequent proceedings taken thereon are set aside. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE October 29, 2010. sjks.