JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

Maghar Singh and others instituted suit No.65/DDPO on 05.04.1995 before the learned Collector concerned. In the said case Gram Panchayat Badrukhan through its Sarpanch Darshan Singh, village Badrukhan, Tehsil and District Sangrur, became imp leaded as party-respondent therein. The above suit was instituted under Section 11 of The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, whereby the plaintiffs' claimed the rendition of a declaratory decree, thus for theirs becoming declared, as owners in possession of the suit khasra numbers. Through a decision made there ons, on 04.08.1997 (Annexure P-1), the title suit (supra), became decreed by the learned Collector concerned.

2. In pursuance to the drawing of the said decree of declaration by the learned Collector concerned, the updation of revenue records also occurred, thus on 28.01.1999, hence as becomes revealed by Annexure P-2. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that the plaintiffs in the suit (supra), were depicted in the column of ownership relating to the suit khasra numbers, thus as owners thereof. Subsequently, it so happened, that the plaintiffs in the title suit alienated, through the drawing of registered deeds of conveyance, thus the said lands in favour of the alienee concerned. Moreover, in pursuance to the alienation, as became made to the alienee concerned, from the alienor, who were the recipients of Annexure P-1, also the attestation of mutation(s) became recorded, and, besides became entered in the revenue records, but at the instance of the empowered Revenue Officer concerned.

3. Be that as it may, it appears that after an inordinate delay of 16 years happening since the passing of Annexure P-1, the Gram Panchayat Badrukhan raised a statutory appeal bearing No.182/2013, before the learned Appellate Authority concerned.

4. Since the above appeal was time barred, as such, through a separate application cast under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , the statutory appeal was explained to arise from sufficient, and, good cause, and, after accepting the said application, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, through the makings of Annexure P-10, thus allowed the Gram Panchayat's appeal (supra).

5. Today it is firmly stated at the bar, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the order, as, made on the application, as, cast under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT rather has remained unchallenged. Therefore, the affirmative order, as, made on the application, cast under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , thus acquires binding, and, conclusive effect.

6. The learned Appellate Authority concerned, through the drawing of Annexure P-10 on 10.12.2015, after allowing the said statutory appeal, as raised before it by the Gram Panchayat concerned, and, which became directed against Annexure P-1 thus proceeded to, obviously set aside Annexure P-1.

7. The above drawing of Annexure P-10 has brought grievance to the alienee from the plaintiffs, whose title suit became initially decreed by the learned Collector concerned, through the drawing of Annexure P-1, but subsequently thereby the learned Appellate Authority concerned, made a reversal of the said declaratory decree, as became granted in favour of the alienor of the present petitioners.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued, that since there was no opportunity granted to the alienee concerned, and, to adduce evidence on the appositely raised plea, thus planked, upon the principle of ostensible ownership, engrafted in section 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rather contemplating that the bonafide purchasers for value without notice, thus becoming p