G.R.MAJITHIA, J. - (1.) THIS order disposes of Civil Writ Petition No. 3928 of 1980, Regular Second Appeal No. 2914 of 1980 and Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1980.
(2.) IN Civil Writ Petition No. 3928 of 1980, Mansa son of Bhollar has challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, passed in R. O. R. No. 38 of 1976-77 and R. O. R. No. 40 of 1976-77 decided on September 25, 1979. In Regular Second Appeal No. 2914 of 1980, Ram Chander son of Bhollar (Original land-lord) has challenged the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind affirming on appeal the order of the trial Judge decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs respondents for possession of the disputed land. Similarly, in Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1980 Mansa son of Bhollar (original land lord) has challenged the appellate order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind affirming on appeal those of the trial Judge, where the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was decreed. Mansa and Phulla sons of Shadi filed an application Under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (for short, the Act) for purchase of land comprised in Rectangle No. 80, Khasra Nos. 9,10 to 17, situated in village Dhatrath, Tehsil Jind. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Jind vide order, dated May 15, 1974. Bhollar unsuccessfully challenged the order in appeal before the Collector. The appeal was dismissed vide order, dated September 25, 1974. The appellate order was challenged in second appeal before the Commissioner by Bhollar and his sons. It was stated therein that the original land owner had transferred the disputed land to his sons under a civil court decree, dated December 19, 1969. The decree was given effect to in the record of rights. Mutation No. 2309 was entered and sanctioned on the basis of the civil court decree in favour of the sons of the land owner. The mutation was reflected in the record of rights, but the tenants did not implead the transferees as party respondents in the application for purchase. Learned Financial Commissioner dealt with this point observing that the copy of the judgment and decree of the civil court decree and the mutation sanctioned on the basis thereof was not produced before him. He further proceeded to hold that the transfer effected in favour of the transferees was hit by Section 19-E of the Act.
(3.) IT is unfortunate that the learned Financial Commissioner negatived the claim of the petitioner on wholly unsustainable point. It was not disputed before him that the original land owner had transferred the disputed land to his sons under a civil court decree and the civil court decree has been given effect to in the record of rights, but he adopted a method to overcome this difficulty by observing that the copy of the civil court decree was not produced. If a fact is not controverted, it is not the requirement of law that that fact must be proved. The petitioner had become owner of the disputed land under a civil court decree and the decree has been given due effect in the record of rights. They were necessary parties to the application for purchase. No order prejudicial to their interest could be passed without hearing them. The order of purchase is, thus, non est.;