- (1.) Eight Civil Writ Petition Nos.7766 of 2004 (Ram Saran and others Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh and others), 7966 of 2004 ( Narvida @ Narmada and another Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh and others), 8129 of 2004 ( Sewa Singh and others Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, Chandigarh and others), 8729 of 2004 ( Naranjan Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others), , 15343 of 2004 ( Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others), 17990 of 2004 (Gurnam Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others), 18531 of 2004 ( Gurvinder Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 20152 of 2004 ( Jasbir Singh and ano ther Vs. State of Haryana and others) are being disposed of through this common order as common question of law arises in these petitions. Different issues, if any, on facts are also being considered and dealt with in this common order.
(2.) The facts in four Civil Writ Petition Nos.7766, 7966, 8129 and 8729 of 2004 as well as the question of law being common are being dealt with separately in this common order whereas the remaining writ petitions can be disposed of as common question of law and facts arise in those petitions.
(3.) One legal issue arising in all the writ petitions is common and is regarding protection of subsequent purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, "the Act"). All these writ petitions were clubbed together as this question of law regarding the effect of Section 41 of the Act was referred for adjudication before the Full Bench in view of two conflicting views expressed by two different Division Benches. This issue has now been decided by Full Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.5662 of 1986 (Smt.Naranjan Kaur and others Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Secretary to the Government of Punjab and others) vide judgement dated 16.7.2010. The Full Bench has held that protection under Section 41 of the Act would not be available to the subsequent vendee but this would not bar the subsequent vendee being proper party to contest the order of cancellation by resorting to the provisions of Sections 24 and 33 of the Act. The bonafide purchasers have been held entitled to get back their money alongwith interest and costs from the vendors. Thus, Section 41 of the Act is held to have no application where transfer is held invalid under Sections 19 and 24 of the Act as no estoppel can be pleaded against the provisions of the statute and such subsequent vendee can only claim refund or damages from the vendors.;