RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 02,1990

RAMESHWAR DASS Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Certain land was given to Labh Singh firstly by lease and later by Sanad with proprietary rights under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1955. The lease was given in 1956 and sanad was granted in 1958. During the period 1960-64 Lab Singh divided that land and alienated in favour of the appellants under different sale-deeds in their favour. They were also put into possession of the different parcels of land purchased.
(2.)In 1966, Ranbir Singh and others claiming that the said land ought to have been granted to them filed an appeal under Section 22 of the said Act before the Settlement Commissioner who by order dated 17/01/1966 rejected their claim. They, then appealed to the Chief settlement Commissioner under Section 24 who however, allowed their appeal setting aside the Sanad of Labh Singh.
(3.)Before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was urged on behalf of the purchasers that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act being bona-fide purchasers for consideration. That contention was not accepted by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. He held that there was no proper enquiry made by the purchasers regarding the title to the property. Thepurchasers then moved the High court by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Learned Single Judge before whom the writ petition came for hearing was of the opinion that the purchasers should be regarded as bona-fide purchasers and entitled to get the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. So stating, he accepted the writ petition and set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Thereupon, there was an appeal before the division bench by Ranbir Singh and others. Learned Judges of the division bench did not examine the validity of the finding on the merits. They however, observed that the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act depends upon the investigation of disputed get the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. So slating, he accepted the writ petition and set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Thereupon, there was an appeal before the division bench by Ranbir Singh and Others. Learned Judges of the division bench did not examine the validity of the finding on the merits. They however, observed that the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of property Act depends upon the investigation of disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. They allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of learned Single Judge.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.