Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjjab on 13 March, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:036455
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11655-1997
Date of decision : 13.03.2024
Avtar Singh and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present :- Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Senior DAG, Punjab.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned
orders of respondents No.2 and 3 (Annexures P-5 and P-6) respectively,
cancelling the original auction sale of 80 kanals of land in Village
Milkwal for Rs.8,000/- made in favour of respondent No.4 on 31.12.1975
and ordering fresh sale of said land already sold on 27.05.1982 by
respondent No.4 for consideration of Rs.67,500/- to the petitioners and
also restraining respondents No.1 to 3 from fresh sale of the said land and
also for staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the said land.
Petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.07.1996
passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana whereby the sale
dated 31.12.1975 executed in favour of respondent No.4 was cancelled
and the order dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Patiala
Division whereby the revision filed against the order dated 26.07.1996
was dismissed.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:036455
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
respondent No.4-Sarwan Singh (through his father as his attorney) had
purchased 80 kanals of inferior evacuee banjar qadim land on 31.12.1975
from the Punjab Government as package deal property in an open auction
on the basis of his highest bid of Rs.8,000/- against the reserved price of
Rs.4,500/-. It is submitted that on the basis of highest bid of auction
purchaser, respondent No.4, sale of the said land to him was confirmed by
the competent authority. He has submitted that normally such inferior
lands were sold by auction and the price was to be paid by installments of
15/20 years. Respondent No.4 had deposited the entire amount of sale
price in the Treasury and the sale certificate dated 21.12.1981 was issued
in his favour. Thus, respondent No.4 became the full owner of the said
land vested in him. Thereafter, the sale certificate, one printed form
containing a condition therein that the land was not to be sold before 20
years to any non-Scheduled Caste persons was issued. He has submitted
that the Mutation No.1018 was sanctioned in respect of the said land in
favour of respondent No.4. However, when the said mutation in favour of
respondent No.4 was reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1981-1982,
he was entered as owner of the said land on basis thereof without any such
condition/restriction mentioned in the revenue entries. Thereafter,
respondent No.4 sold his land on 27.05.1982 through registered sale deed
at the prevalent market price of Rs.67,500/- to the petitioners and thus, the
petitioners purchased this land as a bona fide purchaser by paying the due
consideration to respondent No.4. Registered sale deed was executed in
favour of the petitioners on 27.05.1982. Thereafter, Mutation No.1046
dated 27.05.1982 was sanctioned without any qualification or condition in
favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Samrala. It
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:036455
is submitted that the mutation entered in favour of respondent No.4 and
sale of the said land to the petitioners is without any condition as reflected
in the revenue record. He submits that the petitioners are 'Saini' by Caste
which is included among the Scheduled Castes and Backward Castes in
Punjab. He has submitted that after purchase of the said land from
respondent No.4, the petitioners have spent Rs.50,000/- for making
various agricultural improvements i.e. for construction of the kothas,
installation of the tubewells etc. He submits that the petitioners are in
continuous, open and peaceful cultivating possession of the said land
since 1982. He has submitted that after about 20 years, the District
Agricultural Officer without any jurisdiction recommended the
cancellation of the auction sale and consequent mutation made in favour
of respondent No.4 in 1975 by sending ex parte reference to respondent
No.3. He has submitted that respondent No.3 acting suo motu and without
any jurisdiction, cancelled the original auction sale and consequent
mutation made in favour of respondent No.4 in 1975 and ordered fresh
disposal after a lapse of about 20 years. It is submitted that the petitioners
and respondent No.4 were provided no opportunity before passing the
impugned order dated 26.07.1996. He has submitted that the only ground
taken for the cancellation of the sale deed and mutation was that the land
was sold to the petitioners in 1982 in violation of Condition No.6 in the
sale certificate restricting sale of land by auction purchaser before 20
years to any Non-Scheduled Caste person. He has submitted that the
registered sale deed for consideration of Rs.67,500/- did not contain any
restriction therein, on the basis of which, the registered sale deed was
cancelled. He has submitted that aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed
the revision petition before the Commissioner, Patiala i.e. respondent No.2
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:036455
who without applying his judicious mind dismissed the same in limine
vide impugned order dated 11.12.1996. It is submitted by counsel for the
petitioners that the mutation entry and jamabandi for the year 1981-82 did
not mention any restriction and thus, there was no fraud whatsoever
committed by the petitioners in purchasing the land from respondent No.4
which was purchased by them at the prevailing market price of
Rs.67,500/-. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case,
it is apparent that the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers and their
rights are protected under the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of
Property Act. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in view of the statutory provisions, it is apparent that the
impugned orders passed are totally illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in
the eyes of law and thus, deserve to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He has drawn the
attention of this Court to the reply filed. It is submitted that the petitioners
have not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the
material facts from this Court. It is submitted that the land in dispute was
sold to respondent No.4 by restricted auction which was incorporated in
the sale certificate issued to the auction purchaser i.e. respondent No.4 on
21.12.1981. He has submitted that this condition restricted respondent
No.4 from alienating this land for a period of 20 years to any non-
scheduled caste and was clearly incorporated in the Mutation No.1018.
The copy of the Mutation is also annexed as Annexure R-3/1. Thus, the
fact regarding the restriction of sale for 20 years was clearly reflected in
the revenue record and thus, respondent No.4 could not alienate the land
in violation of the condition incorporated in the sale certificate. He has
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -5- 2024:PHHC:036455
submitted that this condition restricting the sale for a period of 20 years is
clearly provided in Rule 8(i) of Punjab Package Deal Properties
(Disposal) Rules, 1976. This Rule 8 reads as follows:-
"(8) Bar on the alienation of the land purchased in restricted
auction:
(i) Where any land has been sold in restricted auction,
the auction purchaser shall not be entitled to lease,
transfer, sell, mortgage with possession or otherwise
alienate or part with the land wholly or partly, so
purchased, in any manner, in favour of a person, who
is not a member of the Scheduled Castes or
Backward Classes, for a period of 20 years, provided
that the land may be pledged in favour of a
Government or Semi-Government Corporation, or
Co-operative Financing Institution, for securing loan
for effecting improvements on the said land."
(ii)An auction purchaser in restricted auction shall
cultivate the land so purchased himself or through
any member of the Scheduled Castes or Backward
Classes only.
(iii) If an auction purchaser in restricted auction violates
any of the conditions, Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib-
Tehsildar (Sales) shall be competent to cancel the
sale, forfeit the amount already paid, and resume the
land, after giving due notice to him.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the issue involved
in the present petition has already been dealt in the Full Bench of this
Court titled as Smt. Niranjan Kaur and others Vs. The Financial
Commissioner, Revenue & Secretary to Government, Punjab and others
passed in CWP-5662-1986 decided on 16.07.2010 which has been
subsequently followed in the judgment titled as Bahal Singh and others
Vs. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and another passed in
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-11655-1997 (O&M) -6- 2024:PHHC:036455
CWP-2745-1994 decided on 19.12.2013 and thus, the issue involved in
the present petition has already been settled by this Court in the above-
mentioned judgments. He has submitted that there being no merit in the
petition, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Heard. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the land in dispute was purchased in an auction
by respondent No.4 on 31.12.1975. This was restricted auction wherein
there was a clear condition that the auction purchaser could not alienate
the same before 20 years to a non-scheduled caste. The Rule 8 has already
been reproduced above. This is an admitted fact that respondent No.4, the
auction purchaser, has sold this land to the petitioners in violation of the
condition as incorporated in the sale certificate issued to respondent No.4.
Thus, by selling the land to the petitioners, respondent No.4 had violated
the mandatory condition. Resultantly, this sale by respondent No.4 in
favour of the petitioners was cancelled on 31.12.1975. The revision filed
against the same was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order
dated 11.12.1996. The controversy involved has been dealt with by this
Court in Niranjan Kaur's case (supra) which has been further followed in
Bahal Singh's case (supra). The law settled could not be denied by the
counsel for the petitioners. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is apparent that the issue involved in the present case has
already been settled. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the
impugned order passed and thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
13.03.2024 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ )
m. sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
