Birmati vs State of Haryana and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Birmati, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed this second appeal. Case of the plaintiff is that suit land measuring 16 kanals 11 marlas was allotted to displaced person Kapoor Singh by Haryana Government vide notification dated 24.03.1995 and vide Sanad (Conveyance Deed) dated 21.09.1995. The plaintiff purchased the suit land from the said allottee vide sale deed dated 28.09.1995 for Rs. 85,000/-. Plaintiff accordingly became owner in possession of the suit land. However, allotment of suit land to Kapoor Singh was cancelled by defendant no. 2 - The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 24.12.2001. The said order has been challenged in the suit as being null and void because the same was passed without granting opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that plaintiff is bona fide purchaser of the suit land for valuable consideration.

Defendants denied the plaint averments and pleaded that Kapoor Singh had died on 12.09.1951, and therefore, allotment of suit land to him in the year 1995 was null and void and was rightly cancelled vide order dated 24.12.2001. Various other pleas were also raised.

Both the courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, who has, therefore, filed this second appeal.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff-appellant remained unheard, and therefore, order dated 24.12.2001 regarding cancellation of allotment of suit land to plaintiff''s predecessor Kapoor Singh is null and void. The contention is apparently very attractive and forceful, but in fact, the contention is completely misconceived and meritless. It is undisputed and has been proved that Kapoor Singh had died on 12.09.1951. Alleged allotment of suit land was made to him in the year 1995. The allotment could not have been made to a dead person, and therefore, the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 24.12.2001. The plea of the plaintiff-appellant that she is bona fide purchaser of the suit land is completely negatived by the sale deed executed in her favour on behalf of Kapoor Singh - alleged allottee of the suit land. Photostat copy of the said sale deed, as shown by the counsel, reveals that the said sale deed was executed by Kapoor Singh through his General Attorney Darshan Kaur, who was appointed General Attorney vide registered Power of Attorney dated 20.06.1995. It would thus show that the alleged Power of Attorney was fabricated on behalf of Kapoor Singh and the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is result of fraud and forgery. Kapoor Singh had died 44 years prior to execution of sale deed, but still the sale deed was executed on his behalf by his alleged Attorney alleging that the principal i.e. vendor Kapoor Singh was alive. The alleged Power of Attorney was also executed on 20.06.1995 i.e. almost 44 years after the death of Kapoor Singh.

It is also worth mentioning that allotment in favour of Kapoor Singh was also obtained by fraud and forgery because affidavits in the name of Kapoor Singh, were submitted in the year 1986 to obtain the allotment, although Kapoor Singh had died in the year 1951.

The plaintiff-appellant cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser because everything was done in a hurry. Alleged Conveyance Deed in favour of Kapoor Singh is dated 21.09.1995 and sale deed in favour of plaintiff is dated 28.09.1995 i.e. just a week after the Sanad/Conveyance Deed in favour of Kapoor Singh. Thus, the plaintiff was in a hurry to grab the suit land. She obtained the sale deed from alleged Attorney of Kapoor Singh, although the alleged Power of Attorney was also fabricated long after death of Kapoor Singh and Kapoor Singh was not alive when the sale deed was executed, and therefore, Attorney could not have executed the sale deed on his behalf. Thus, plaintiff also cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the suit land.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, when the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land, the question of granting her opportunity of hearing before passing cancellation order dated 24.12.2001 did not arise.

On the other hand, Darshan Kaur was duly given opportunity of hearing before passing the said order. The plaintiff obtained the sale deed from said Darshan Kaur. In these circumstances, it also cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not given before passing cancellation order dated 24.12.2001. Even otherwise, plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the said order when the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit land. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by both the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant Interference. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.