AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ranjit Singh, J.—Claiming themselves to be bonafide purchasers of a land from Surjit Singh, general attorney of Malkiat Kaur (respondent No. 6), the petitioners have challenged the order of sanction of mutation of this land in favour of Gram Panchayat. This writ petition was filed in April, 2007 and notice of motion is yet to be issued in this case.
Smt. Malkiat Kaur was allotted land measuring 52 kanals- 8 marlas being a war widow under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. This allotment was made on 7.11.1977. It is averred that Malkiat Kaur entered into an agreement for sale of this land with the petitioners on 30.9.(sic). This agreement is through attorney. It is not disclosed as to how this agreement ran into rough weather for which the petitioners had to file a suit for specific performance. However, it is mentioned that petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of this agreement in October, 1983. This suit, as stated, was decreed on 5.9.1984, which has attained finality. The Executing Court thereafter appointed a Local Commissioner for execution of this sale deed and the sale deed was executed on 23.5.1985. As per the petitioners, they were delivered possession of this land and mutation was also sanctioned in this regard.
Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 5 appears to have challenged the right and title of the petitioners and that of respondent No. 6. According to the petitioners, the Gram Panchayat had no locus. Gram Panchayat also challenged the mutation done in favour of the petitioners on the ground that respondent No. 6 Malkiat Kaur had already died. The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was accepted and the mutation done in favour of the petitioners was rejected. This order was challenged by the petitioners in an appeal which was allowed, against which the Gram Panchayat filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner, which is allowed on 31.8.2006. The petitioners has, thus, filed the present writ petition.
After 2/3 adjournments granted at the instance of the Counsel for the petitioners, the case was taken up for hearing on 24.7.2007. The Counsel for the petitioners took time to place on record the copies of a plaint, written statement, judgment and decree passed in the suit for specific performance on the basis of which the sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioners. Till date, the petitioners have not placed on record any such document. The case has been adjourned on number of occasions and except for the sale deed nothing is placed on record to show either the judgments or the decree etc. Rather, the Counsel for the petitioners has placed on record copy of the application which they filed for obtaining these documents from the court. In response to this, petitioners are informed that due to dilapidated condition of the old record room building and leakage in the roof, 80-85% record has been spoiled. It is further stated that the file could not be traced out from the record in good condition. As per the clerk, JRR Ludhiana, old record of the year 1984-85 has been damaged, so this application was returned to the petitioners.
This appears to be a clever ploy on the part of the petitioners to deprive the court to have peep into the relevant record and documents. Attorney of Malkiat Kaur obviously has connived with the petitioners to grab this land. The record, if produced, would have revealed these means. The impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner would show that the order of mutation passed by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade dated 16.3.1998 was challenged in appeal by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that Smt.Malkiat Kaur was already dead. She has still been impleaded as proforma respondent through her attorney. Obviously, attorney would cease to be valid upon the death of the principal. The allegation further is that petitioners have fraudulently shown the property purchased from Malkiat Kaur by cleverly claiming that they have purchased this land through her attorney. It was noticed that neither original Parchi nor sale deed was produced before the Collector. Collector, thus, found that this was a bogus transaction and an attempt to usurp Panchayat land. The mutation done by Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was rejected. Divisional Commissioner set aside this order passed by the Collector, which was then interfered by the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner had also noticed that there was another case of allotment of land in village Talwandi Kalan where the allottees were represented by their attorney. Surjit Singh, the attorney of Malkiat Kaur, was also the attorney in the said case. In that case, it was observed that there was a well planned conspiracy to defraud the Railways and the Forest Department. So far as the role of Surjit Singh was concerned, it was observed as under:
...The pivotal and active role was played by Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation at the Government level. The fabrication of the claim was masterminded by one Surjit Singh son of Arjun Singh, who had filed both the revision petitions claiming to be the General Attorney. The credentials and designs of this General Power of attorney are highly and unconscionably dubious...." Para 14 of the order states "...The file shows that despite these incriminating observations by the dealing hand, the MO did not bother to check any record nor were any supporting documents placed on the Goshawara file by the interested party. Rather it was only after the initiative was seized by Surjit Singh son of Arjun Singh and the so called claimants faded into oblivion, that the allotment process speeded up. The complicity between the revenue staff and the Power of Attorney is evident. It is now found that the same Surjeet Singh s/o Arjun Singh is acting on behalf of a number of other claimants also and they specialize in filing belated allotment claims posing as partially unsatisfied claimants and have been getting these allotments on the basis of their links with the staff of the Revenue and Rehabilitation Department.
Thus, there is too much to say about credentials of Surjit Singh, from whom the petitioners have purchased this land. It is also noticed that sale deed was never produced before the Collector, though it is now produced on record from no where. The copies of the plaint, decree, judgment and the written statement, which were directed to be placed on record to show in what condition and under what circumstances this suit was allowed and not appealed against, have not been placed on record. The petitioners seem to be hiding too much from the court. If these documents had been placed on record, it would have certainly exposed the petitioners and the attorney of respondent No. 6 and the deal to be fraudulent. The Counsel had no answer when asked as to why he could not produce the plaint or judgment from his record as he must have obtained a copy of the judgment for getting sale deed executed through the courts. Since the petitioners have failed to comply with the requirement expected from them, an adverse inference certainly can be drawn against them that these documents if produced would show some design and purpose on the part of petitioners to grab this land. In the background of the facts as noticed, no case for interference in the writ petition is made out. Though the date of death of Malkiat Kaur cannot be made out, but any subsequent action taken by the attorney would be without any legal sanction after the death of Malkiat Kaur. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioners on the basis of judgments in the cases of Gurcharan Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab 1993 (3) R.R.R. 174 and The State of Haryana and Ors. v. Smt. Savitri Devi and Ors. 1986 P.L.J. 656 relating to the mutation proceedings would not need any consideration. Even otherwise, these judgments do not appear to be applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioners in this case have not been able to establish themselves to be the bonafide purchasers from the person, who held a valid title of this land.
The writ petition is, thus, dismissed in limine.