Jaswant Singh,J. - (1.) The petitioner (who is subsequent purchaser) has challenged the order dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana (respondent No. 1) by which revision filed under Section 8 of the Haryana Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqarirdar (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (for short 'the Act') by which order dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, Mewat and the order dated 10.03.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon were set aside.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 23.07.2019 (P-7) has been passed by respondent No. 1 by adopting an erroneous approach while observing and recording that application under Section 3 of the 2010 Act was moved by Mandir Devla through its caretaker-respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is submitted that the application was moved by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in their own capacity as Dholidar and Ahertamam who were delivering religious service at Mandir Devla of the village. It is further argued that Mandir Devla is a religious premises and not an entity as held by the authority below and therefore there is gross misreading of evidence led on record. Finally it is argued that the petitioner is a subsequent bonafide purchaser of the property in question and therefore the authority below ought to have considered this aspect of the matter before passing the impugned order and saved his rights.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and scrutinized the paper book. 3.1 It is evident from the record that an application for grant of ownership rights of the land in question was filed at the instance of Ahtmam (Manager) of Mandir Devla. The Collector, Mewat, vide its order dated 12.02.2013 (P-4), conferred the ownership rights upon Narayan Dass etc. and the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat before the Commissioner, Gurgaon was dismissed on 10.03.2014 (P-6). However, during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon, the alleged, Dholidars sold 32 kanals of land vide sale deed dated 11.04.2013 to respondent No. 3 (a builder) and 32 kanal and 15 marla to petitioner, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on 27.05.2013. 3.2 The revision petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that it was Mandir Devla which is recorded as a Dholidar in the Revenue Record and in view of Section 2 (d) of the Act, the Ahtemam is not the Dholidar. 3.3 Thus, considering the findings recorded herein above it would be relevant to reproduce Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as under: (d) Dohlidar, Butimar, Bhondedar or Muqararidar" means a person who has been recorded as such in the revenue record and includes his predecessor and successor in interest. ;