M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 23.1.2012 (P.13) and notice dated 31.1.2012 (P.14) passed by the Recovery Officer- respondent no.1. According to the order dated 23.1.2012 the property measuring 2 bighas 15 biswas (2750 sq. yds) situated at village Seona, Link Road, near Gurudwara Nanaksar, Mauji Thaur, Vikas Nagar, Patiala was sold by the the Tribunal in execution of certificate to Surinder Pal son of Shri Om Parkash resident of 546, Tripuri Town, Patiala. THE sale has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser as per the law and the certificate was issued to him. THE Recovery Officer also issued notice dated 31.1.2012 (P.14) whereby the petitioner is required to handover vacant possession of the property being the occupant. However, their case is that have purchased the aforesaid property as a bona-fide purchaser on the basis of valid sale deeds transferring valid title to them. It has been asserted that Raj Kumar who was entered as owner in the revenue record in the year 1995-96 (P.1) transferred this land in the name of his wife Sneh Lata, son Shivdeep and daughter Ramanpreet, respondent nos. 5 to 7. Entry regarding change of ownership was made in the jamabandi for the year 2000-01 in the column of remarks in red ink (P.2). THEy sold about 25 biswas of land themselves and remaining through the general attorney. THE aforesaid Sneh Lata, Shivdeep and Ramanpreet, respondent nos. 5 to 7 executed general power of attorney regarding 31 biswas of land in favour of Harbhajan Singh, respondent no. 4 on 26.2.2003 with the right to sell, mortgage, gift, lease and transfer of whole land or in parts (P.3). THE above respondents 5 to 7 sold some of the area themselves and some of the area through the general power of attorney Harbhajan Singh- respondent no.4. THE details of the transaction have been set out in para 4 (i) to (x) of the writ petition which reads thus: "4 (i) Vide Regd. Sale deed dated 31.1.2003 petitioner no. 1 Amrit Kaur and petitioner no.2 her husband Parvinder Singh purchased 16 Biswas measuring about 800 sq. yards. Out of the above said 2 bighas 15 biswas for Rs. 3,20,000/- for respondent nos. 5 and 6. (ii)Vide regd. Sale deed dated 31.1.2003 petitioner no.3 Maninder Singh and his aunt Sukhwinder Kaur wd/o Shri Iqbal Singh, respondent no. 289, Anand Nagar A, Tripri, Patiala purchased 8 Biswas measuring about 400 sq.yds out of the above said 2 bighas 15 biswas for Rs. 1,60,000/- from respondent nos. 5 and 6. (iii) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 30.4.2003 petitioner no.4 Surinder Kaur purchased 4 Biswas measuring about 200 sq. yds. Out of the above said 2 bighas 15 biswas for Rs. 1,00,000/- through respondent no.4 Harbhajan Singh. (iv) Vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.2004, petitioner no.5. Rajinder Kaur purchased about 3 biswas measuring about151 Sq. yds. for Rs. 1,09,500/- out of the 16 biswas land purchased by Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Dawarka Dass s/o Sh. Magnet Rai resident of Prem Nagar, Bhandson Road, Patiala 4/10 share and Kirpal Singh s/o Sh. Jangir Singh s/o Khazan Singh resident of Manjit Nagar Bhadson Road Patiala vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.12.2004 out of above said 2 bighas 15 biswas land for Rs. 4,40,000/- through respondent no.4 Harbhajan Singh. (v) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.3.2006 petitioner no.6 Ram, Sanjiwan purchased 2 ? Biswas measuring about 113 sq. yds. for Rs. 82,000/- from Kirpal Singh s/o Shri Jangir Singh s/o Sh. Khazan Singh r/o Manjit Nagar, Bhandso Road, Patiala out of the above said 16 biswas which he alongwith above said Pawan Kumar purchased vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.12.2004 out of the above 2 biswa 15 Biswas land for Rs. 4,40,000/- through respondent no.4. Harbhajan Singh. (vi) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.3.2006 petitioner no. 7 Rajesh Kumar purchased 3 1/3 Biswas measuring about 151 sq. yds for Rs. 1,10,000/- from Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Dawarka Dass s/o Shri Mangat Rai r/o Prem Nagar, Bhandso Road, Patiala out of the above said 16 Biswas which he alongwith above said Kirpal Singh purchased vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.12.2004 out of the above 2 Biswa 15 Biswas land for Rs. 4,40,000/- through respondent no.4 Harbhajan Singh. (vii) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.3.2006 petitioner no. 8 Bhagwan Kaur purchased 2 ? biswas measuring about 113 sq. yds for Rs. 82,000/- from Kirpal Singh s/o Sh. Jangir Singh s/o Sh. Khazan Singh r/o Manjit Nagar, Bhadso Road, Patiala out of the above said 16 Biswas which he alongwith above said Pawan Kumar purchased vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.12.2004 out of the above 2 Biswa 15 Biswas land for Rs. 4,40,000/- through respondent no.4 Harbhajan Singh. (viii) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 26.5.2003 petitioner no. 9 Hakam Singh purchased 4 Biswas measuring about 200 sq. Yds out of the above 2 Biswa 15 Biswas land for Rs. 1,00,000/- through respondent no.4 Harbhajan Singh. (ix) Vide regd. Sale deed dated 4.12.2003 petitioner no.10 Kamlesh purchased 5 Biswas measuring 253 sq. yds out of the above 2 Biswa 15 Biswas land for Rs. 1,26,000/- through respondent no. 4 Harbhajan Singh. (x) Vide regd. General Attorney dated 29.3.2006 petitioner no.11, Rajender Kumar occupied 4 biswas measuring about 200 sq. yds alongwith rights of sale, mortgage, transfer from Kirpal Singh s/o Sh. Jangir Singh s/o Sh. Khazan Singh r/o Manjit Nagar, Bhadso Road, Patiala out of the above said 16 Biswas which he alongwith above said Pawan Kumar purchased vide regd. Sale deed dated 29.12.2004 out of the above 2 Biswas 15 Biswas land for Rs.4,40,000/- through respondent no. 4 Harbhajan Singh....."
(2.) THE petitioners, who are vendees, received a notice dated 31.1.2012 alongwith order dated 3.1.2012 (P.13 and P.14). According to them they came to know for the first time that Raj Kumar, respondent no.3 might have raised some loan for his rice mill known as Star Rice Mill which infact is charge on the land in question. THE aforesaid Mill was demolished and the land was sold to the petitioner in small pieces. According to the petitioner, the bank authorities connived with respondent no.3 in as much as no entry was made in the revenue record. It has been maintained that demolition of the mill, removal of machinery and transfer of land was not the small event which could escape the notice of the bank authorities unless it was an act of connivance on their part. It is claimed that the petitioners being bona-fide purchaser with consideration and without any notice are entitled to be the owner of the land and also to protect their position. THEy cannot be compelled by the Recovery Officer to surrender vacant possession. We have heard learned counsel at some length and are of the view that this writ petition is wholly mis-conceived. To a pointed query posed by the Bench, learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to deny that the vendor of the petitioners did not surrender the earlier sale /title deed(s) executed in their favour of their vendor(s) and in the absence of any surrender of the title deed in favour of the vendor of the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners to be a bona-fide purchasers becomes doubtful. Under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 a charge is created on the property by the act of the parties making the immovable property as security for payment of loan. Non furnishing of sale deed itself leads to doubt the bonafide of the transactions in the form of sale deeds which are set up by the petitioners as the vendee. It straightway raises a doubt about the status of the property whether it is free from all encumbrances or is under a charge. The title deeds of the vendor of the petitioners continue to be in possession of the respondent- bank. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order dated 23.1.2012 (P.13) and 31.1.2012 (P.14). The writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant admission. Dismissed.;