AMRIT KAUR Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 23.1.2012 (P.13) and notice dated 31.1.2012 (P.14) passed by the Recovery Officer- respondent no.1. According to the order dated 23.1.2012 the property measuring 2 bighas 15 biswas (2750 sq. yds) situated at village Seona, Link Road, near Gurudwara Nanaksar, Mauji Thaur, Vikas Nagar, Patiala was sold by the the Tribunal in execution of certificate to Surinder Pal son of Shri Om Parkash resident of 546, Tripuri Town, Patiala. THE sale has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser as per the law and the certificate was issued to him. THE Recovery Officer also issued notice dated 31.1.2012 (P.14) whereby the petitioner is required to handover vacant possession of the property being the occupant. However, their case is that have purchased the aforesaid property as a bona-fide purchaser on the basis of valid sale deeds transferring valid title to them. It has been asserted that Raj Kumar who was entered as owner in the revenue record in the year 1995-96 (P.1) transferred this land in the name of his wife Sneh Lata, son Shivdeep and daughter Ramanpreet, respondent nos. 5 to 7. Entry regarding change of ownership was made in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01 in the column of remarks in red ink (P.2). THEy sold about 25 biswas of land themselves and remaining through the general attorney. THE aforesaid Sneh Lata, Shivdeep and Ramanpreet, respondent nos. 5 to 7 executed general power of attorney regarding 31 biswas of land in favour of Harbhajan Singh, respondent no. 4 on 26.2.2003 with the right to sell, mortgage, gift, lease and transfer of whole land or in parts (P.3). THE above respondents 5 to 7 sold some of the area themselves and some of the area through the general power of attorney Harbhajan Singh- respondent no.4. THE details of the transaction have been set out in para 4 (i) to (x) of the writ petition which reads thus:

(2.) THE petitioners, who are vendees, received a notice dated 31.1.2012 alongwith order dated 3.1.2012 (P.13 and P.14). According to them they came to know for the first time that Raj Kumar, respondent no.3 might have raised some loan for his rice mill known as Star Rice Mill which infact is charge on the land in question. THE aforesaid Mill was demolished and the land was sold to the petitioner in small pieces. According to the petitioner, the bank authorities connived with respondent no.3 in as much as no entry was made in the revenue record. It has been maintained that demolition of the mill, removal of machinery and transfer of land was not the small event which could escape the notice of the bank authorities unless it was an act of connivance on their part. It is claimed that the petitioners being bona-fide purchaser with consideration and without any notice are entitled to be the owner of the land and also to protect their position. THEy cannot be compelled by the Recovery Officer to surrender vacant possession.