Sarup Singh & Ors. vs Commr.& Secty.To Govt. Of Hy. & Ors.

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
th
Reserved on 7 of August, 2026
th
Pronounced on 5 of November, 2026
th
Uploaded on 5 of November, 2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CWP-10954-2001 (O&M)
Sarup Singh and others ....Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner & Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present : Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate,
Mrs. Amita Arora, Advocate,
Mr. Karamjit Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Akshay Jindal, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Kalyani Tehri, Advocate
for respondents No.5 and 11.
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature
of certiorari quashing order dated 28.05.2001 (Annexure P-7) passed by
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 2
respondent No.1 affirming the orders dated 20.12.2000 (Annexure P-6),
16.05.1988 (Annexure P-5) and that dated 26.06.1987 (Annexure P-4)
passed by the authorities below.
2. As per the facts pleaded in the writ petition, one Beant Singh
predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.5 to 8, was allotted 487 Bigha 9
Biswas of land in village Khokhran in the year 1949 as a displaced person in
lieu of the land abandoned by him in Western Punjab at the time of partition.
2.1. Beant Singh died. Mutation qua his inheritance was entered on
09.09.1963 in favour of Mohinder Singh, Jagmeet Singh and Jasmeet Singh.
The authorities, later, discovered that Beant Singh was allotted land in
excess of his entitlement. Consequently, a reference was made to the Chief
Settlement Commissioner for setting aside excess allotment of land allotted
to Beant Singh. Allotment of land measuring 251 Bigha 17 Biswas in favour
of Beant Singh was cancelled vide order dated 16.06.1977.
2.3. Successors of Beant Singh assailed order dated 16.06.1977
before the Financial Commissioner, who accepted their petition filed under
Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act,
1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1954 Act’) and remanded the case to
Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision.
2.4. Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 02.07.1982
again cancelled P. Rights qua 59 standard acres 8-1/4 units of land. One of
the LRs of allottee, namely, Avtar Singh Puri challenged order dated
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 3
02.07.1982 by filing a revision petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act
before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary Rehabilitation.
The petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.1987.
2.5. Order passed by Financial Commissioner was further assailed
by Avtar Singh Puri before this Court in CWP No.3589 of 1987. Orders
passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 02.07.1982 and that passed
by Financial Commissioner dated, 17.03.1987 were set aside. The case was
remanded back to Chief Settlement Commissioner.
2.6. Chief Settlement Commissioner decided the matter afresh vide
order dated 11.11.1994 complying with the orders passed by the High Court.
By the said order, the P. Rights of the land to the extent of 59 standard acres
8-1/4 units were again annulled
3. Concededly, the cancellation of allotment has attained finality
upto Supreme Court. After the allotment was cancelled vide order dated
11.11.1994, the cancelled area now stands allotted to some other allottees.
4. Vide impugned order dated 20.12.2000 (Annexure P-6), Chief
Settlement Commissioner decided Revision Petitions bearing No.43, 44, 45,
46 of 1996 and Revision Petition No.13 of 1997 filed at the behest of the
persons, who purchased the land from LRs of Beant Singh during the year
1982-83 to 1986. The sale deeds in favour of the petitioners pertain to the
land qua which allotment in favour of Beant Singh stands cancelled. The
revision petitions stand dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 4
The petitioners sought review of the order passed by the Chief Settlement
Commissioner. The review application stands dismissed vide order dated
28.05.2001 (Annexure P-7).
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the orders passed by
the authorities. He contends that the petitioners were oblivious of the legal
proceedings pending qua the land in dispute. They are bona fide purchasers
and are entitled for benefit under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1882 Act’). He submits that at the time of
purchase of land by the petitioners from the successors of Beant Singh, the
name of vendors was reflected in the Record of Rights as absolute owners of
the land in question. The petitioners had no reason to doubt the Record of
Rights which has presumption of truth attached thereto. Thus, the impugned
orders passed by the authorities, cannot be sustained. In order to hammer-
forth his contention, counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this
Court to Daily Diary Report dated 22.03.1979 (Annexure P-1). As per the
same, the area qua which allotment was cancelled, was ordered to be
restored in the name of allottee Beant Singh.
5.1. Mr. Ghai further relies upon instructions issued by Punjab
Government (Department of Rehabilitation), dated 12.08.1961 reproduced in
the replication to contend that where an allottee has disposed off his total
holding, the transfer/sale made by him needs to be ignored while retrieving
excess area keeping in view the inconvenience faced by a vendee.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 5
5.2. Mr. Ghai further submits that there is a registered sale deed
w.r.t. Khasra No.469, allotment qua which has not been cancelled. Thus,
area comprised in Khasra No.469 admeasuring 3 Bigha 17 Biswas, needs to
be excluded from the order. In order to buttress his contention, he relies
upon ratio of law laid down in the case of ‘ The State of Haryana and
others vs. Smt. Savitri Devi and others’, 1986 P.L.J. 656 , ‘ Mohinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others’ – CWP No.1958 of 1981 , decided
on 06.02.1996 and ‘ Achhar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and
others’, 1979 P.L.J. 278.
6. Per contra, Mr. Jindal, learned Sr. Counsel representing
respondents No.5 to 11 would submit that the issue w.r.t. availability of plea
of bona fide purchaser to a vendee from allottee under 1954 Act is no more
res integra and has been answered by a Full Bench of this Court in ‘Smt.
Niranjan Kaur and others vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue &
Secretary to Government, Punjab and others’, 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 610 .
He submits that Beant Singh was an allottee under the 1954 Act. Part of
allotment made in his favour was cancelled. Cancellation has already
attained finality upto Supreme Court. Petitioners are the persons who
purchased land from the successors of Beant Singh during the time
proceedings in re : cancellation of land were pending before the authorities.
Thus, the petitioners cannot claim to be bona fide purchasers.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 6
th
7. After the matter was reserved by this Court on 7 of August,
2026, the petitioners by moving CM No.18872-CWP-2026 have placed on
record various documents to prove that they are in continuous possession of
land in dispute.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners further relies upon Annexure P-
21, i.e., Rapat Roznamcha No.503 dated 26.06.1987 in which the factum of
cancellation has been recorded. He submits that the cancellation of
allotment was first recorded in the year 1987, i.e., after 10 years of
cancellation of allotment. Thus, the petitioners being bona fide purchasers
are entitled to benefit under Section 41 of 1882 Act.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through records of the case.
10. From the chronology of events stated herein-above, it is evident
that excess allotment of land made in favour of Beant Singh was cancelled
vide order dated 16.06.1977. From 16.06.1977 till 1994, the issue w.r.t.
cancellation of allotment remained sub-judice before various authorities
including this Court and Supreme Court. The sale deeds in favour of the
petitioners are dated 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987. Petitioners themselves rely
upon Rapat Rojnamcha dated 22.03.1979 (Annexure P-1) which shows that
the allotment qua area in dispute made in favour of Beant Singh was
cancelled vide order dated 16.06.1977. Even though, the Rojnamcha reports
of the restoration, but the fact w.r.t. cloud on allotment is evident. In the
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 7
entire writ petition, there is not even a whisper that any inquiry was made by
the petitioners before purchasing the land in dispute.
10.1. That apart, the issue w.r.t. availability of plea of bona fide
purchaser to a vendee from an allottee under the 1954 Act, already stands
answered by a Full Bench of this Court in Niranjan Kaur’s case (supra),
observing as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
41. It cannot be disputed that the Act is a special Act, whereas
the Transfer of Property Act, is a general Act. Therefore, the
provisions of the Property Act, would have no application to orders
passed under Sections 19 and 24 of the Act.
42. In support of this conclusion, reference can be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harishchandra Hegde
v. State of Karnataka and others, (2004)9 SCC 780 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 vis-a- vis Section 51 of the
Property Act, has laid down as under :-
"13. By reason of an order passed under Section 4 of the
Act, the lands are directed to be restored in the event the
illegalities specified therein are discovered. The
consequences contained in Section 5 of the Act apply
automatically in the event an order under Section 4 of the
Act is passed. Section 4 of the Act contains a non obstante
clause. The said provision would, thus, apply
notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement or
any other Act for the time being in force. The Act is a
special Act whereas the Transfer of Property Act is a
general Act and in that view of the matter also Section 51 of
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 8
the Transfer of Property Act will have no application and
the consequences contained in Section 5 would prevail."
43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail
Singh (dead) by LRs., (2007)2 SCC 404 , while interpreting the
scope of provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Property Act, has
laid down as under :-
"9. Application of Section 41 of the Act is based on the law
of estoppel to the effect that if a man has represented that
the transferor consents to an act which has been done and
that he would not offer any opposition thereto, although the
same could not have been lawfully done without his consent
and he thereby induces others to do that from which they
might have abstained, he could not question the legality of
the act he had so sanctioned, to the prejudice of those who
have so given faith to his words or to the fair inference to be
drawn from his conduct.
10. The ingredients of Section 41 of the Act are :
(1) the transferor is the ostensible owner;
(2) he is so by the consent, express or implied, of the
real owner;
(3) the transfer is for consideration;
(4) the transferee has acted in good faith, taking
reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had
power to transfer.
11. Section 43, on the other hand, embodies a "rule of
feeding the estoppel" and enacts that a person who makes a
representation shall not be heard to allege the contrary as
against a person who acts thereupon and it is immaterial
whether the transferor acts bona fide or fraudulently in
making the representation.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 9
12. In order to get the benefit of the said provision, the
conditions which must be satisfied are :
(1) the contract of transfer was made by a person
who was competent to contract; and
(2) the contract would be subsisting at the time
when a claim for recovery of the property is made.
13. However, the provisions would have no application if
the transfer was invalid as being forbidden by law or
contrary to public policy, as envisaged under Section 23 of
the Contract Act. Thus, no estoppel can be pleaded contrary
to the provisions of a statute. The "rule of feeding the
estoppel" shall apply in absence thereof."
44. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, question No. 2 is answered against the petitioners,
by holding, that the provisions of the special statute, would
override the provisions of Section 41 of the Property Act.
45. On the third question it is held that the "person" would
include Union or the State Government, as the "person" has not
been defined in the statute, therefore, would need liberal
interpretation. In support of this finding, reference can be made to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samatha v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3297 ,
wherein it has been held as under:-
"There is no reason to consider the word 'person' in a
narrowsense. It must be construed in a broader
perspectivity, unless the statute,either expressly or by
necessary implication, exempts the State from the operation
of the Act as against the State and would include "State
Government".
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 10
The maxim "reddendo singula singulis" will apply to the
interpretation of the word 'person" so that the general
meaning of the word "person" in its generic sense with its
width would not be cut down by the specific qualification
of one species, i.e., natural "person" when it is capable to
encompass, in its ambit, natural persons, juristic persons
and constitutional mechanism of governance in a
democratic set up. It has already been held, and bears no
repetition, that the State, by Cabinet form of Government, is
a persona ficta a Corporate sole. Constitution empowers the
State to acquire, hold and dispose of their property. The
Governor in his personal responsibility is empowered to
maintain peace and good Government scheduled area. The
Fifth Schedule to the Constitution empowers him to
regulate allotment of the land by para 5 (2)(b) read with
Section 3 of the Regulation of the land be it between natural
persons, i.e., tribals and non- tribals; it imposes total
prohibition on transfer of the land in scheduled area. The
object of the Fifth Schedule and the Regulation is to
preserve tribal autonomy, their culture and economic
empowerment to ensure social, economic and political
justice for preservation of peace and good Government in
the Scheduled Area. Therefore, all relevant clauses in the
Schedule and the Regulation should harmoniously and
widely be read so as to elongate the aforesaid constitutional
objectives and dignity of person to the Scheduled Tribes,
preserving the integrity of the Scheduled Areas and
ensuring distributive justice as an integral scheme thereof.
Clauses (a) and (c) of sub para (2) of para 5 of the Fifth
Schedule prohibits transfers Inter vivos between tribals and
non-tribal natural persons and prevents money-lenders to
exploit the tribals. Clause (b) intends to regulate allotment
of land not only among tribals but also prohibits allotment
of the land belonging to the Government to the nontribals.
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 11
In that behalf, wider interpretation of "regulation" would
include "prohibition" which should be read into that clause.
If so read, it subserves the constitutional objective of
regulating the allotment of the land in Scheduled Areas
exclusively to the Scheduled Tribes. Clause 5(2)(b) ensures
distributive justice of socio-economic empowerment which
yields meaningful results in reality. If purposive
construction, in this backdrop is adopted, no internal or
external contradiction would emerge. The word "person"
would include both natural persons as well as juristic person
and constitutional Government. This liberal and wider
interpretation would maximise allotment of Govern-ment
land in scheduled area to the tribals to make socioeconomic
justice assured in the Preamble and Articles 38, 39 and 46, a
reality to the tribals. The restricted interpretation would
defeat the objective of the Constitution. The word "person"
would be so interpreted as to include State or juristic person
Corporate sole or persona ficta. Transfer of land by the
juristic persons or allotment of land by the State to the non-
tribals would stand prohibited, achieving the object of para
5(2) of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and Section 3
of the Regulation. If the word 'person' is interpreted to mean
only natural persons, it tends to defeat the object of the
Constitution, the genus and the Regulation, its species. As a
corollary, by omission in the final draft of the Fifth
Schedule of the power of the State Government to transfer
its land to the non-tribals with the sanction of a competent
authorised officer or authority would, by interpretation
brought into effect and the object of the Constitution would
easily be defeated. We are, therefore, inclined to take the
view that the word 'person' includes the State Government.
The State Government also stands prohibited to transfer by
way of lease or any other form known to law, the
Government land in scheduled area to non-tribal person, be
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 12
it natural or juristic person except to its instrumentality or a
Co-operative Society composed solely of tribes as is
specified in the second part of Section 3(1) (a). Any other
interpretation would easily defeat the purpose exclusive
power entrusted by the Fifth Schedule to the Governor. If
the Cabinet form of Government would transfer the land of
the Government to non-tribals peace would get disturbed,
good governance in scheduled area would slip into the
hands of the non-tribals who would drive out the tribals
from scheduled area and create monopoly to the well
developed and sophisti-cated non-tribals; and slowly, and
imperceptible, but surely, the land in the scheduled area
would pass into the lands of the non-tribals. The letter of
law would be an empty content and by play of words
deflect the course of justice to the tribals and denude them
of the socio- economic empowerment and dignity of their
person."
xxx xxx xxx”
10.2. The precedents relied upon by counsel for the petitioners are all
prior to the pronouncement of the Full Bench judgment in Niranjan Kaur’s
case (supra). Thus, they stand impliedly overruled and do not advance the
cause of the petitioners.
10.3. In view of the binding ratio of law laid down by Full Bench,
this Court finds that the remedy available to the petitioners shall be to claim
refund of sale consideration or damages from their vendors.
10.4. So far as the issue w.r.t. exclusion of area comprised in Khasra
No.469 admeasuring 3 Bigha 17 Biswas, is concerned, if the order of
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-10954-2001 (O&M) 13
cancellation of allotment does not hit the said land, the sale deed qua the
said land shall remain in operation.
11. In view of above, finding no merit in the present writ petition,
the same is ordered to be dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
November 05, 2026 (Pankaj Jain)
Dpr
Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
DEEPAK KUMAR
2026.11.05 16:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document