CWP No. 9711 of 2003 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9711 of 2003 Date of decision: December 24, 2008 Raghu Nath and others ... Petitioners versus The Commissioner and Secretary Govt. of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh. Present: Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. -- Hemant Gupta, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 8.4.2003, Annexure P-7, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of Central Government under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. One Surat Singh was allotted land in village Khera, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani, as a displaced person. The said allotment was cancelled on 23.12.1987. The petitioners have purchased land measuring 40 kanals out of the land allotted to Surat Singh vide registered sale deed dated 20.04.1984. Land measuring 137 Kanals 3 Marlas was also sold by the CWP No. 9711 of 2003 [2] General Attorney of Surat Singh. Earlier, the petitioners filed a civil suit but the same was dismissed on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of the Court in terms of Section 36 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and section 13 of the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for setting aside the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed. The petition filed by the petitioners under section 33 of the Act was dismissed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, exercising the powers of Central Government, vide order dated 8.4.2003, Annexure P-7, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. In the present writ petition, the sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, having purchased the land from the allottee for valuable consideration and in a bona fide manner. 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