FAZRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (who is subsequent purchaser) has challenged the order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No. 1) by which revision filed under Section 8 of the Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqarirdar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act') by which order dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, Mewat and the order dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon were set aside.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 23.07.2019 (P-7) has been passed by respondent No. 1 by adopting an erroneous approach while observing and recording that application under Section 3 of the 2010 Act was moved by Mandir Devla through its caretaker-respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the application was moved by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in their own capacity as Dholidar and Ahertamam who were delivering religious service at Mandir Devla of the village. It is further argued that Mandir Devla is a religious premises and not an entity as held by the authority below and therefore there is gross misreading of evidence led on record. Finally it is argued that the petitioner is a subsequent bonafide purchaser of the property in question and therefore the authority below ought to have considered this aspect of the matter before passing the impugned order and saved his rights.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinized the paper book.