SMT. NIRANJAN KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) passed in exercise of powers under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 (for short, 'the 1954 Act'), upholding the claim of certain purchasers under the heirs of one Budha Singh and rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The persons at loggerheads were persons, who had also purchased certain properties allotted at Beri village, District Gurdaspur and the petitioners being the purchasers of other properties in Kapurthala district from the very same vendors, namely, the heirs of Budha Singh, who had obtained an allotment yet again in suppression of the fact that Budha Singh had earlier obtained an allotment in District Gurdaspur. Each set of purchasers was interested in contending that one or the other of the allotments had been either brought about by fraud or it had not taken effect in the manner required by law.

(2.) It becomes necessary to set forth certain other backgrounds facts. Budha Singh was a 'displaced person' at the time of partition, who fled from the place in District Sialkot, now in Pakistan, and as such, he was entitled to allotment of certain properties in lieu of the properties held by him before partition. A matter of fact which is admitted is that he was entitled to 14 standard acres and 7 = units of agricultural land and in satisfaction of his claim, the property of said extent was said to have been allotted in his favour at Beri village in Gurdaspur district. Budha Singh died in the year 1956 and his legal heirs had secured a fresh allotment of certain other properties in 4 villages in District Kapurthala in the year 1962. All the properties obtained on allotments had been sold by the heirs of Budha Singh and left it to the purchasers to fight their rights before the authorities when action was initiated by the State authorities for cancellation of allotment obtained by Budha Singh's heirs in alleged suppression of fact of an earlier allotment. Initially the Managing Officer cancelled the allotment made in Gurdaspur district at Village Beri on the ground that the proprietary rights (P-rights) had not been granted to Budha Singh, while such rights had also been granted after the allotment was made at District Kapurthala. This cancellation was done without reference to the purchasers and the challenge was brought at the instance of the purchasers of property at District Gurdaspur from the legal heirs by Budha Singh by preferring an appeal under Sec. 22 of the 1954 Act. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who took up the cases at the appellate level and in revisional jurisdiction respectively addressed the issue from the point of view of the nature of right that had been obtained by the allottee, one without reference to P-rights and another where the P-rights were also given contemporaneous to the allotment. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, who was dealing with the issue, obtained a report from the field officials that the allottees had not obtained P-rights in respect of the land allotted to them in Gurdaspur and that being so, the property could not be sold, while the allotment in respect of the property in Kapurthala district had been followed up with such P-rights and, therefore, the sale made in Gurdaspur district was alone required to be set aside. The State also conceded before the Financial Commissioner that the dispute was inter se between the respective purchasers and the interest of the State itself was not involved. He had clarified that a quasi permanent allottee, who had not obtained proprietary rights, was not competent to sell the land without acquiring such rights. While disposing off the petition, the Financial Commissioner observed that the legal heirs of Budha Singh had played fraud on compensation pool in securing a second allotment in the district Kapurthala, their father having already been allotted the land in the Village Beri and it was, therefore, the second allotment which was required to be set aside. It is this order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 12th Aug. 1986 that is in challenge before this Court.

(3.) At the initial stage among other contentions, it has been urged on behalf of the purchaser that he had been a bona fide transferee for value without notice of any defect in title and, therefore, he was entitled to be protected in the purchase by the operation of Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. There were other contentions as well, but before we turn on to them, this contention must be stated only to be rejected, in view of an authoritative pronouncement that has been rendered on a reference in this case to a Full Bench for consideration whether permission under Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act would be available to a purchaser from an allottee of land under the 1954 Act. The Full Bench has answered the reference through its judgment dated 16.07.2010 that the purchaser will get no protection under Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the subsequent vendee would have only a right to claim refund or damages from his vendor. After answering the reference, the matter has again been placed before this Court for consideration of the case on merits.