PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Punjab State Through Collector
Versus
Lala Shiv Dayal
Regular Second Appeal No. 548 of 1983,549 of 1983,
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 2003
Property Dispute - Government Grants Act, 1895 - Section 2 of the Government Grants Act, 1895 - The court discussed the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895, and its applicability to the transfer of property by the Government. It highlighted that the Act exempts government grants from the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, and emphasized that a sale deed is not a necessary precondition for conveying title if the transfer is by the Government.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs purchased properties put to public auction, claimed ownership, and filed suit for possession. Defendant alleged prior purchase by State Government.
Finding of the Court:
Trial Court dismissed the suit, but 1st Appellate Court decreed the suit for possession. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the 1st Appellate Court's judgment, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Issues: Dispute over ownership of property, applicability of Government Grants Act, 1895, and the necessity of a sale deed for conveying title by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Government Grants Act, 1895 exempts government grants from the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Registration Act, 1908, and emphasized that a sale deed is not a necessary precondition for conveying title if the transfer is by the Government.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the 1st Appellate Court's judgment, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. Defendant State of Punjab is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment decree passed by 1st Appellate Court in a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-respondents.
2. Plaintiffs in Suit No. 127 of 20th February, 1978 purchased property bearing No. B-II-S-21-16/B&C measuring 50x25, whereas, plaintiff in Suit No. 126 of 20th August, 1977 purchased property bearing No. B-II-21/16A measuring 50-2"x25. Both these properties were put to public auction by the Managing Officer (Sales) Jalandhar on 3.2.1964 and the plaintiffs were successful bidders for the purchase of the said property. A sale certificate was issued to the plaintiffs.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiffs the Punjab Government was running a Government Primary School in the rooms shown in the site plan attached and room in Suit No. 127 was given to the Education Department on rent, but the officials of the School failed to pay the rent. The Rent Petition was filed in the Court of Rent Controller, but the same was withdrawn, in view of the fact that the Education Department denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant and alleged that the department itself is owner of the suit property. In view of the aforesaid, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession.
4. The defendant filed written statement and alleged that before the suit property was auctioned in favour of the plaintiffs, the State Government had already purchased the suit property together with the adjoining plot on payment of Rs. 8100/- paid to the Regional Settlement Commissioner and thus the plaintiffs have no right to file the suit and Managing Officer (Sales) has no interest which could be put to public auction which is said to be purchased by the plaintiffs.
5. The Regular Second Appeal No. 548 of 1983 arises out of Civil Suit No. 127 of 1978, whereas Regular Second Appeal No. 549 of 1983 arises out of Civil Suit No. 126 of 1977. Since identical question of law and fact arise in both these suits, thus, both these appeals are being disposed of by the present common order.
6. The following substantial questions of law which arises for consideration are:
1. Whether the property in dispute was sold to the State Government prior to 31st of March, 1963 and thus Rehabilitation Department through the Managing Officer (Sales) has no interest in the suit property to put in public auction?
2. Whether Stat is required to prove its title on the basis of document of title such as conveyance deed?
7. For the sake of facility, the facts are taken from the records of Civil Suit No. 127 of 1978.
8. The plaintiffs have produced letter of allotment dated 29th of September, 1996 Ex., in respect of property No. B&C. It has been endorsed therein "that the site only has been sold the super structure belongs to Punjab Government." The sale certificate produced as Exh. All, wherein in schedule of the property, it is mentioned that site only has been sold after scoring the word construction. The plaintiffs claimed that on the basis of such letter of allotment and the sale certificate, they are the owners of the site and thus entitled to the possession. On the other hand, the State has relied upon receipt Exh.DA, wherein it is mentioned that a sum of Rs. 8100/- have been withdrawn from the account of the State Government vide cheque No. 695957 for payment to Regional Settlement Commissioner on account of cost of property No. B-II-S-21/16. The defendants also produced letter dated 16th of August, 1966 as Ex.DW4/l from the Tehsildar (Sales) Hoshiarpur to the Managing Officer (Sales) Jalandhar to the effect that property No. 16A, 16B and 16C have wrongly been sold to Shri Shadi Lal S/o Ram Lal & Ram Lal S/o Sukh Ram respectively. These are the properties which have already been transferred by negotiation to the Government Girls Primary School Kacha Toba (Hoshiarpur). The said letter read as under:
From The Tehsildar (Sales),
Hoshiarpur.
To The Managing Office
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.