Property Project2

8/13/2019 Property Project2

1/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Material Facts 2

Issues..

3

Critical Analysis.

3

Judgement...

5

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR Page 1


2/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

MATERIAL FACTS

Appellant applied for transfer of land on the ground that he as in continuous

possession of this land since !hariff 1"#".

$anchayat %amiti& Fero'pur& respondent (o.1& )hereinafter referred to as the

*respondent*+ filed an appeal in the Court of %ales Commissioner& Fero'pur on 1"th

May& 1""5.

,he %ales Commissioner& Fero'pur -ide his order dated th June& 1""5 returned the

appeal on the ground that the Act and /ules pertaining to transfer of land ere notapplica0le.

/espondent then filed an appeal 0efore the Chief %ales Commissioner )eputy

Commissioner+& Fero'pur against the transfer of the land in fa-our of the appellant.

,he appellate authority after perusing the record came to the conclusion that the



3/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

appellant had taen the land on lease from $anchayat %amiti for a sum of

/s.3&4 in the year 1"#"" -ide receipt (o. 6# dated 2nd May& 1"#".

%u0se7uent to the taing of the land on lease& the appellant filed an application for

allotment of land treating it to 0e in the onership of the %tate 0eing a $acage eal

$roperty.

,he appellate authority found that the land 0elonged to the istrict 8oard and on

the a0olition of the istrict 8oard the land as transferred to the $anchayat %amiti&

Fero'pur

It as held that the land did not 0elong to the %tate of $un9a0 and the transfer made

in fa-our of the appellant as 0ad in la as ell as fraudulent.

Aggrie-ed against this order of the appellate authority the appellant filed a re-ision

0efore the Commissioner& Fero'pur i-ision& hich as accepted.

Aggrie-ed against the said order of the re-isional authority& respondent filed a rit

petition hich as accepted.

,he :igh Court held that the land as not a $acage eal $roperty hich had 0een

transferred 0y the Central ;o-ernment to the %tate ;o-ernment on payment of

price. ,hat the land 0elonged to the istrict 8oard and on the dissolution of the

8oard& the land as transferred and mutated in fa-our of the respondent.

/espondent as found to 0e the oner of the land and the sale made in fa-our ofthe appellant as held to 0e in-alid and ithout 9urisdiction. Accordingly& the order

of the re-isional authority as set aside and the sale made in fa-our of the appellant

as also set aside.

ISSUES


4/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

;o-ernment to the %tate ;o-ernment on payment of price.

Clause )1A+ of %ection 2 of the $un9a0 $acage eal $roperties )isposal+ Act&

1"6& defines the ?pacage deal property? as the property hich as taen o-er as

surplus e-acuee property 0y the %tate ;o-ernment.

@n transfer 0y the Central ;o-ernment all such lands -ested in the $ro-incial

;o-ernment under the aforesaid Act.

,his conclusi-ely shos that the property as not a ?pacage deal property? as

contended 0y the learned counsel for the appellant and as not in the onership of

the %tate ;o-ernment. ,he property 0elonged to the istrict 8oard.

It has 0een pro-ided under %ection 11# of the ila $arishad Act& 1"1 that on the

a0olition of the istrict 8oards& all the assets and lia0ilities ould de-ol-e on the

$anchayat %amitis functioning in the districts or in the ila $arishad in such manner

as the ;o-ernment may order4direct.

@n the a0olition of the istrict 8oards& their properties ere apportioned amongst

the ila $arishads and the $anchayat %amitis under the order of the %tate

;o-ernment dated 13th Fe0ruary& 1"2.

,he property situated in -illage !hai )hich is in dispute+ has 0een shon in

%chedule *:* anneBed to the order of the %tate ;o-ernment dated 13th Fe0ruary&

1"2. ,hereafter on a re7uest as made to transfer the land to the respondent and so it

as made clear that the go-ernment land situated at -illage Fattuala& ;ameala&

!hai and Mamdot 0elonged to the ila $arishard and thereafter the land stood

transferred to the respondent.

,his also shos that the land did not 0elong to the %tate go-ernment 0ut 0elonged

to the ila $arishad4$anchayat %amiti as the successor to the istrict 8oard and

hich in turn as transferred to the respondent.

,he learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the appellant as 0ona

fide purchaser for consideration ithout notice and& therefore& the protection

pro-ided under %ection >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act as a-aila0le to him.

%ection >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act reads ?>1. ,ransfer 0y ostensi0le oner


5/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

property& a person is the ostensi0le oner of such property and transfers the same

for consideration& the transfer shall not 0e -oida0le on the ground that the transferor

as not authorised to mae it pro-ided that the transferee& after taing reasona0le

care to ascertin that the transferor had poer to mae the transfer& has acted in good

faith.?

Dnder section >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act& transfer made 0y an ostensi0le

oner ith the consent& eBpress or implied of the real oner is protected pro-ided

that the transferee after taing reasona0le care to ascertain that the transferor had

the poer to mae transfer had acted in good faith. Eearned counsel for the

appellant as una0le to sho from the record that the %tate go-ernment had

transferred the land in fa-our of the appellant acting as an ostensi0le oner ith the

consent& eBpress or implied& gi-en 0y the respondent in fa-our of the %tate

;o-ernment.

Eearned counsel for the appellant as also una0le to sho that the appellant had

taen any care to ascertain that the %tate ;o-ernment as either the oner or had

the poer to transfer the land and that he had acted in good faith.

@n the contrary& it has 0een 0rought on record that the appellant had taen the land

on lease from the respondent in the year 1"#"" hich clearly demonstrates that he

ne that the respondent as the oner of the land. In spite of noing all these facts the appellant did not tae care to ascertain the

title of his -endor.

In these circumstances the appellant is not entitled to the protection pro-ided under

section >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act.

JUDGEMENT

,hese appeals ha-e 0een filed against a common 9udgment of the $un9a0 and :aryana

:igh Court& herein the :igh Court has set aside the order of the re-isional authority

)Commissioner& Fero'pur+ and cancelled the sale made 0y ,ehsildar)%ales+ in fa-our of

the appellants. Court held that he land as transferred to the appellant on payment of

/s.2&254 out of hich the appellants had initially deposited a sum of /s.3 0eing



6/6

PROPERTY LAW- I

the 142th share of the prioce ithin 15 days in the treasury on the presentation of the

challan. ,he remaining amount as to 0e deposited ith interest 1G in 1" e7uated

installments. Eearned counsel for the parties ere una0le to state as to ho much

amount has 0een paid 0y the appellants to the %tate ;o-ernment. In the circumstances&

e direct that the appellants )in all four appeals+ ould 0e entitled to the refund of

hate-er amount has 0een deposited 0y them ith the %tate ;o-ernment. ,he %tate

;o-ernment is directed to refund the amount deposited 0y the appellants ithin a period

of three months from today. For the reasons stated a0o-e& e do not find any merit in

these appeals and the same are dismissed ith no order as to costs.

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR Page

Property Project2

Documents

Transcript of Property Project2