Civil Writ Petition No. 6265 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6265 of 1992 Date of decision : 29.04.2011 Jai Parkash and another ....Petitioners V/s Collector, Karnal and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TIWARI Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG Haryana. AJAY TIWARI J. (ORAL) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) holding the Panchayat the owner of the land and passing the order of ejectment of the Gram Panchayat, Khotpura. The admitted facts are that land in dispute was originally owned by one Ram Chander as per Jamabandi right from the year 1963-64. In the year 1958, Ram Chander sold this land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner from whom the petitioner purchased the same in the year 1962. Apparently by an order dated 18.04.1957, during consolidation proceedings the land in dispute was allotted to the Gram Panchayat, Khotpura (respondent No. 2) and as a result thereof certain land of the Gram Civil Writ Petition No. 6265 of 1992 2 Panchayat was transferred to Ram Chander. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64, the land continued to be reflected in the name of the original owner and no steps were taken by Gram Panchyat to get recorded the change of ownership in the revenue record and mutation in this regard in favour of Gram Panchayat bearing No. 637 was sanctioned only on 01.10.1965. The precise question before this court is whether the petitioner can be held to be the owner of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order passed by Assistant Collector on 18.04.1957 was never placed on record and only document which was placed on the record was mutation which does not confer any title. Mr. Mehtani, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has argued that once it was accepted that land was transferred to Gram Panchayat and in lieu thereof land of Gram Panchayat was given to Ram Chander, the petitioner could not get any title from the seller in regard to the land in question. He has relied upon revenue record which constantly shows the Gram Panchayat to be the owner of the disputed land. In my considered opinion the question is whether the petitioner was covered under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the answer to that would have to go in favour of the petitioner. Even if it is assumed that the land was validly transferred in favour of Panchayat in the year 1957 yet by permitting the existing revenue record to continue and by not getting the transfer recorded in the revenue record by way of mutation it has to be held that respondent no. 2 permitted Ram Chander to be the ostensible owner of the land. Once that be so, if the petitioner had acted in bona fide and checked the revenue Civil Writ Petition No. 6265 of 1992 3 record, Section 44 of the Act would have protected him. Since the land continued to be reflected in the revenue record in favour of petitioner, benefit thereof can well be extended to the transaction entered into by the petitioner as per Section 41 of the Act. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and orders are set- aside. The Gram Panchayat, Khotpura would be at liberty to move against Ram Chander who now seems to have got double benefit, one of having received land from the Gram Panchayat and secondly of having sold the land in dispute. April 29, 2011 (AJAY TIWARI) Ajay JUDGE