Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Jasbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045831
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
RSA-2517-1988 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.04.2024
Pronounced on: 04.04.2024
2024:PHHC: 045831
JASBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
. . . . APPELLANTS
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
. . . . RESPONDENTS
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Argued By:- Ms. Raina S. Thakur, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs,
whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction, regarding land in
dispute, was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.07.1986 and then, the appeal
filed by them was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 18.08.1988. Thus, the
present appeal is against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below.
2.1 The facts, which merge on perusal of the record, are that one
Waryam Dass, a member of the Scheduled Caste, purchased 79 Kanals 9
marla of land [hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land'] situated within the
revenue estate of village Bachhuan, Tehsil Balachaur, District Hoshiarpur in a
'restricted auction' for an amount of ₹32,500/-. It was a package deal
property. On receipt of the entire sale consideration, sale certificate dated
10.09.1981 was issued in his favour. However, said Waryam Dass sold the
suit land to the plaintiffs (appellants herein) for consideration of ₹45,000/-
vide sale deed dated 26.04.1983. Defendant No.2-Tehsildar-cum-Managing
Officer (Sales), vide impugned order dated 27.01.1984, cancelled the transfer
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045831
RSA-2517-1988 2024:PHHC: 045831
of the suit land earlier made in favour of Waryam Dass and also forfeited the
sale consideration to the State Government, on account of breech of the
conditions of the sale, as the suit land earlier sold to Waryam Dass, could not
be sold further by him to a non-scheduled caste person for a period of 20
years.
2.2 Plaintiffs challenged the validity of the order dated 27.01.1984
by pleading that once Waryam Dass was issued a sale certificate, he had
become absolute owner of the suit land and so, the condition imposed on the
auction purchaser i.e. Waryam Dass restricting him from selling the land to
any person other than Scheduled Caste, was against the public policy.
Plaintiffs also pleaded to be bona fide purchasers for value.
2.3 Suit was contested by the defendants (respondents herein) by
submitting that sale of the land in auction to Waryam Dass was subject to the
provisions of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 [for short
'the 1976 Act'] and rules, 1976 made thereunder, prohibiting the transfer of
the said land to a non-scheduled caste person for the period of 20 years; and
that said condition was duly incorporated in the sale certificate and therefore,
the sale of the suit land made by the Waryam Dass, in favour of the plaintiffs,
was in violation of the statutory bar.
2.4 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties
was taken on record. Trial Court found the impugned order dated 27.01.1984
to be valid and legal. Plaintiffs were found to be not the bona fide purchasers.
As such, the suit was dismissed on 18.07.1986.
2.5 Plaintiffs filed appeal. The Appellate Court referred to Rule 2J
of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 [for short 'the
1976 Rules'] defining 'restricted auction' to mean as an auction confined to
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045831
RSA-2517-1988 2024:PHHC: 045831
the members of the Scheduled Castes or to the socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens notified by the State Government from time to
time. Ld. Appellate Court further referred to Rule 6 (8), which created bar on
the alienation of the land purchased in the restricted auction to any person, not
a member of the Schedule Castes for a period of 20 years. The said Rule
further provided that in case an auction purchaser in restricted auction violates
any of the conditions, Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales) was
competent to cancel the sale, forfeit the amount already paid and resume the
land after serving necessary notice. Ld. Appellate Court further found that
before passing the order dated 27.01.1984, whereby the sale in favour of
Waryam Dass was canceled and amount forfeited, necessary notices were sent
to Waryam Dass, but he refused to receive the same and as such, he was
proceeded ex parte.
2.6 Ld. Appellate Court further referred to Joga Singh Vs. The
Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation-cm-settlement Commissioner), Jalandhar,
1980 PLJ 404, in which a member of the Scheduled Castes had purchased
some land in restricted auction under Rule 5 of 1976 Rules. It was a Package
Deal Property and Condition No.7 incorporated in the conveyance deed,
prohibited the sale thereof to a Non-Harijan for a period of 10 years. Validity
of the condition was assailed before this Court. It was held by this Court that it
was a valid and enforceable condition.
2.7 Ld. Appellate Court further found that in the sale certificate
dated 10.09.1981, issued in favour of Waryam Dass, it was clearly stipulated
that he i.e. auction purchaser (Waryam Dass) will not be entitled to sell,
mortgage or alienate the land in question in favour of any Non-Harijan for a
period of 20 years. After referring to these stipulations in the conveyance deed
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045831
RSA-2517-1988 2024:PHHC: 045831
and by relying upon Joga Singh's case (supra), ld. Appellate Court upheld the
order of the trial Court, whereby the impugned order dated 27.01.1984 of the
Tehsildar (Sales) was found to be legal and valid.
2.8 Adverting to the plea of the appellants-plaintiffs to the effect
that they were bona fide purchasers, ld. Appellate Court referred to the entries
in the jamabandi Ex.D2, wherein there was a specific remark with a red ink,
reciting that auction purchaser Waryam Dass was not entitled to sell the land
for a period of 20 years i.e. from 20.08.1975 to 20.08.1995 in favour of a
Non-Harijan. The identical remark in red ink also appeared in the mutation
No.370 (Ex.D1), vide which ownership of the suit land was mutated from
Central Government to Waryam Dass. Based on these entries, it was found
that appellants-plaintiffs could not plead themselves to be bona fide
purchasers and so, issue was held to be rightly decided against them by the
trial Court. Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
3. Ld. counsel for the appellants, before this Court, was at loss of
words to assail any of the aforesaid concurrent findings of the Courts below
on any ground whatsoever. By referring to the relevant provisions of law and
rules and by referring to the evidence produced on record, it has been rightly
held that sale made by auction purchaser-Waryam Dass in favour of plaintiffs
was illegal and void being in violation of the specific terms and conditions of
the auction made in his favour. The said sale was found to be in violation of
the 1976 Act and the rules made thereunder and as such, the impugned order
dated 27.01.1984 passed by Tehsildar (sales) was found to be legal and valid.
On the basis of evidence on record, in view of entries made in the revenue
record, it has been rightly held that plaintiffs-appellants are not the bona fide
purchasers.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045831
RSA-2517-1988 2024:PHHC: 045831
4. After going through the impugned judgments passed by the
Courts below, this Court does not find any merit whatsoever, in the present
appeal, so as to warrant any interference in the well reasoned judgments
passed by the Courts below.
Dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
04.04.2024 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
5 of 5
