Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab Etc vs Darbara Singh Etc on 4 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142770
RSA-924-1992(O&M) - 1-
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-924-1992(O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
State of Punjab and others
....Appellants
vs.
Darbara Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab
for appellants-State
Mr. R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate
for LRs of respondents No. 1 to 3
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellants-State through instant Regular Second Appeal is
seeking setting aside of judgment dated 15.11.1991 passed by Additional
District Judge, Bathinda and judgment dated 01.09.1988 passed by Sub
Judge Ist Class (A), Bathinda.
2. Succinctly, the facts are that one person namely Sunder Singh
son of Darshan Singh migrated to India at the time of partition. He
abandoned 42 standard acres and 1½ units of agricultural land in Pakistan.
In view of applicable provisions, Sunder Singh was entitled to allotment of
land in India. He passed away before allotment of land and his collaterals
filed claim for allotment of land. The claim of collaterals of Sunder Singh
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142770
RSA-924-1992(O&M) - 2-
was scrutinized and competent authority in 1956 allotted them 28 standard
acres and 1½ units land in village Adamke, Tehsil Mansa, District Bathinda.
The collaterals vide sale deed dated 22.02.1957 sold part of allotted land to
Darbara Singh, Kartar Singh and Tarlok Singh all sons of Khazan Singh
(hereinafter referred as 'plaintiffs'). The deed was duly registered. The
plaintiffs took possession of land from collaterals. Two daughters and
maternal grandson of Sunder Singh also applied for allotment of land in lieu
of land abandoned by Sunder Singh in Pakistan. The Revenue Authorities
on 16.12.1962 allotted them land in district Karnal. It is apt to notice that at
that point of time district Karnal was part of State of Punjab.
3. The Revenue Authorities realized that Sunder Singh had been
allotted land twice in lieu of land abandoned by him in Pakistan. Firstly,
land was allotted to collaterals of Sunder Singh and secondly to his
daughters and maternal grandson. The Revenue Authorities on 29.06.1971
cancelled land allotted to collaterals of Sunder Singh. The matter travelled
to this Court and cancellation of land allotted to collaterals of Sunder Singh
was upheld. A Division Bench of this Court while dismissing contentions of
the collaterals vide judgment dated 26.04.1982 granted liberty to plaintiffs to
raise their claim of bona fide buyer before Civil Court. The relevant extracts
of judgment dated 26.04.1982 passed in LPA No.195 of 1979 are reproduced
as below:-
"As regards the additional contention advanced on
behalf of the vendees, it may be observed that it would be open
to them to resist their dispossession from the land in question by
establishing in the Civil Court, if so advised, that they had
purchased the land bona-fide, for consideration from the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142770
RSA-924-1992(O&M) - 3-
ostensible owner as and when action to dispossess them from
the land is taken by the competent authority."
4. On account of cancellation of allotment of land to collaterals,
the Revenue Authorities attempted to take possession of land purchased by
plaintiffs. They preferred civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction
before Sub Judge Ist Class (A), Bathinda. The said suit came to be
adjudicated vide judgment dated 01.09.1988. The Civil Court found that
plaintiffs had purchased land from collaterals for consideration. They have
acted in a bona fide manner and at the time of purchase, land was in the
possession of collaterals and they were legally holding possession of the
land. The Civil Court allowed suit of the plaintiffs and declared that they are
legally entitled to retain the property. The operative portion of judgment
dated 01.09.1988 reads as:-
"In view of what has been discussed above and on the basis of
my findings on the above issues, I grant a decree for
declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are the owners and in
possession of the suit land measuring 55 kanals 6 marlas, as
fully detailed in the cause title of the plaint, situated in village
Adamke. I also grant a decree for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants No. 1 to 4 from dispossessing the
plaintiffs from the suit land illegally and forcibly, otherwise
than in due course of law and also from recovering any amount
on account of arrears of rent or for use and occupation of the
suit land, with costs."
5. The State feeling aggrieved from aforesaid judgment preferred
appeal before District Judge, Bathinda which came up for consideration
before Additional District Judge, Bathinda on 15.11.1991. The Appellate
Court did not find substance in the submissions of the appellant-
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142770
RSA-924-1992(O&M) - 4-
State and concluded that in view of Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882, the plaintiffs cannot be dispossessed from the land in question.
Hence, instant appeal.
6. Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that plaintiffs were duty
bound to enquire legality of allotment made to collaterals at the time of
purchase of land in question. The land in question was wrongly allotted to
collaterals, thus, they were not rightful owners and could not sell it.
7. From the perusal of record, it is evident that land in question
was allotted in 1956 to collaterals of Sunder Singh who had abandoned land
in Pakistan. The land was allotted to collaterals of Sunder Singh by
competent authority. Another piece of land came to be allotted to daughters
and maternal grandson of Sunder Singh. The first allotment was made in
district Bathinda and another in district Karnal. The Revenue Authorities
cancelled first allotment in 1971. The plaintiffs purchased land in question
in 1957. The collaterals sold 37 Bighas 17 Biswas land to plaintiffs whereas
they were allotted 28 standard acres land. It is apt to notice that at the time
of consolidation, the ownership of plaintiffs was not disputed rather they
were allotted 55 Kanals 6 Marlas land in lieu of land already in their
possession. The allotment to daughters took place in 1962.
8. From the perusal of record and arguments of learned State
counsel, it is evident that there is no allegation against plaintiffs that they
played fraud with the State. The State is not further alleging that plaintiffs
were aware that collaterals of Sunder Singh have wrongly got allotted land.
The State is alleging that plaintiffs were duty bound to verify genuineness of
allotment to collaterals of Sunder Singh. The argument of State is very
strange. The Revenue Authorities which were dealing with allotment of land
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142770
RSA-924-1992(O&M) - 5-
could not find out that collaterals of Sunder Singh were not eligible to
allotment of land and they cancelled allotment after 15 years whereas
plaintiffs who are simple villagers are expected to enquire genuineness of
allotment. The plaintiffs were bona fide buyers for consideration. There is
neither allegation nor finding that they had purchased land without
consideration. The collaterals have sold partial land to another person i.e.
Raja Singh and there is nothing on record disclosing that State proceeded
against Raja Singh to take over possession of the land in question. The
plaintiffs were undisputedly bona fide buyers for consideration and at the
time of purchase, land was duly allotted in favour of collaterals and
allotment was made by competent authority. The collaterals were having
possession of the land and they handed over to plaintiffs. They purchased
land in 1957 and allotment was cancelled in 1971. Thus, there was no fault
on the part of plaintiffs. The Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have
rightly upheld their claim.
8. In view of the above facts and findings, the instant appeal sans
merit and is hereby dismissed.
9. Pending Misc. application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
04.11.2024
paramjit
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
5 of 5
