Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 688
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.C.Garg and N.K.Agrawal JJ.
Baldeep
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 10039 of 1997,8210 of 1997,
Decided On : MAY 15, 1998
A fraudulently obtained allotment of surplus land is void ab initio and can be cancelled by the Financial Commissioner, even if it has been sold to a bona fide purchaser.
Headnote:
HARYANA CEILING ON LAND HOLDINGS ACT, 1972 - SECTION 15(5) - ALLOTMENT OF SURPLUS LAND - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - FRAUDULENT OBTAINING OF SECOND ALLOTMENT - RIGHTS OF BONA FIDE PURCHASERS.
Fact of the Case:
Krishan Lal was allotted surplus land in 1979. In 1986, part of the land was withdrawn due to an error. Krishan Lal fraudulently obtained a second allotment in 1980. He sold both allotments to different purchasers. The State Government challenged both allotments before the Financial Commissioner, who cancelled both. The purchasers filed writ petitions challenging the cancellation.
Finding of the Court:
The Financial Commissioner erred in cancelling the first allotment as it was not specifically challenged by the State Government. The second allotment was rightly cancelled as it was obtained fraudulently. The bona fide purchasers of the first allotment are entitled to retain their land, while the purchaser of the second allotment has no remedy against the State Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the Financial Commissioner erred in cancelling the first allotment without a specific challenge from the State Government? 2. Whether the second allotment was rightly cancelled due to fraud? 3. Whether the bona fide purchasers of the first allotment are entitled to retain their land? 4. Whether the purchaser of the second allotment has any remedy against the State Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Financial Commissioner's cancellation of the first allotment was not sustainable in law as it was not specifically challenged by the State Government in its revision petition. 2. The second allotment was rightly cancelled as it was obtained fraudulently by Krishan Lal. 3. The bona fide purchasers of the first allotment are entitled to retain their land as they purchased it in good faith and there was no contravention of the relevant rules. 4. The purchaser of the second allotment has no remedy against the State Government as the allotment was void ab initio due to fraud.
Final Decision: Civil Writ Petition No. 10039 of 1997 is allowed, and the order dated 18th February 1997 passed by the Financial Commissioner is quashed insofar as it relates to the cancellation of the allotment dated 27th January 1979. Civil Writ Petition No. 8210 of 1997 is dismissed.
N.K.Agrawal, J.
1. These are two writ petitions, raising common facts and common controversy.
2. Civil Writ Petition No. 10039 of 1997 has been filed by two persons (brothers) for quashing the order dated 18th February, 1997 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. The second writ also challenges the same order.
3. Certain land, in the case of a landlord, was declared surplus area. Out of that surplus area, land measuring 36 kanals 1 marla situated in village Liwalwali, Tehsil and District Sirsa, was allotted to respondent No. 4 Krishan Lal by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Allotment Authority on 27th January, 1979. Possession of the land was delivered to the allottee on 22nd September, 1979. An appeal filed by the landlord, in his surplus area case was pending before the Commissioner at that time. That appeal came to be decided on 17th July, 1986 and land measuring 17 kanals 8 marlas was excluded from the surplus pool consequently, allotment made to respondent No. 4 to the extent of 17 kanals 8 marlas was cancelled and possession of that area was taken away from him and delivered back to the landlord. Respondent No. 4 was left with land measuring 18 kanals 13 marlas out of the total allotted land. He claimed to be entitled to the allotment of additional area to that extent. He sold the allotted land to the petitioners, Baldeep and Rameshwar sons of Daulat Ram, residents of Mad ho Singhana, Tehsil and District Sirsa, by registered sale deed dated 31st May, 1989 for Rs. 24,000/-. Possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner. Once Chandu son of Rugha moved an application before the Allotment Authority, Sirsa, seeking cancellation of the allotment made in favour of respondent No: . Chandu claimed that he was a tenant on the allotted land since 195051 and, therefore, he was entitled to the allotment. It was wrongly allotted to respondent No. 4. The Allotment Authority cancelled the allotment by order dated 14th September, 1989. Petitioner No. 2 filed an appeal before the Collector, who allowed the same on 9th January, 1991 on the ground that the Allotment Authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment made by him earlier.
4. Krishan Lal filed another application seeking allotment of surplus land to him on the ground that he had become entitled to the allotment of equivalent area after the first allotment made in the year 1979 was partly cancelled. On his application, the Allotment Authority again allotted the land measuring 39 kanals 15 marlas in another village out of another surplus pool on 10th October, 1980. Though, the respondent-Krishan Lal, was entitled to the allotment to the extent the earlier allotment made in the year 1979 was cancelled, he was, however, allotted more land. Krishan Lal sold this land also to Mahavir Prashad (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 8210 of 1997) on 1st June, 1988. Krishan Lal had been given possession of the land (on subsequent allotment) on 25th August, 1986 and 31st May, 1987).
5. The State Government filed a revision petition, challenging the second allotment dated 11th October, 1980 before the Financial Commissioner. Though the State Government had specifically challenged the second allotment alone the first allotment was also mentioned in the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner cancelled both the allotments made in favour of the respondent Krishan Lal.
6. In Civil Writ Petition No. 10039 of 1997, the two petitioners are the vendees who purchased land from Krishan Lal on 31st May, 1989. In Civil Writ Petition No. 8210 of 1997, the petitioner-Mahavir Prashad, is the vendee purchasing land from Krishan Lal on 1st June, 1988.
7. Official respondent Nos.1 to 3 have defended the order of the Financial Commissioner, whereby both the allotments, made out of the surplus pool of land to Krishan Lal have been cancelled. It is pointed out that Krishan Lal had obtained the first allotment of land from the surplus pool in the year 1979. Out of the said a
