Rekha Mittal, J. - (1.) The present appeal has been directed against the consistent findings recorded by the Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs seeking declaration that they are co -owners in possession of suit land measuring 56 kanals 2 marlas situated in Village Sarangpur, Tehsil and District Ambala, detailed in para 1 of the judgment of the trial trial Court, was dismissed by the learned trial Court and findings recorded by the trial Court have been affirmed in appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellants has submitted that Mangal Singh left behind some properties in Pakistan and in lieu thereof a parchi allotment was issued. Later, allotment was made to one Iqbal Singh but the same was cancelled in August 1957. Balbir Singh claiming to be legal heir of Shri Mangal Singh filed an application for allotment of the land but the same was dismissed in January 1994. Thereafter, Balbir Singh and Jeeto initiated proceedings for obtaining succession certificate and they were granted succession certificate by the civil Court on 27.10.1994. Subsequent thereto, allotment in favour of Balbir Singh and Jeeto was made qua 40 standard acres of land in December 1994. Mutation Ex. P7 was sanctioned in favour of Balbir Singh and Jeeto on the basis of allotment made by the competent authority. The appellants/plaintiffs after verifying the revenue record purchased the suit land vide two sale deeds i.e. sale deeds No. 3191 dated 25.01.1996 and No. 3263 dated 02.02.1996 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 3,20,000.00 and Rs. 3,22,000.00 respectively on the basis whereof mutation Nos. 424 and 425 were sanctioned and entries in the jamabandi for the year 1997 -98 were accordingly made in their favour. The appellants came in peaceful possession of the suit property as owners without any interruption from any quarter since the date of its purchase. They obtained copy of jamabandi from Halqa Patwari to raise loan on the suit property and came to know of a red entry and rapt No. 228 dated 06.09.2002 and on further inquiry, it was revealed that the defendants have passed order regarding cancellation of the allotment. It was further revealed by the defendants that the suit property would be auctioned on 09.01.2006.
(3.) Counsel for the appellants would contend that at the time of cancellation of allotment in favour of Balbir Singh and Jeeto vide order dated 27.06.2002 Ex D1, no notice much less an opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellants despite the fact that necessary entries were incorporated in the revenue record on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour as back as in the year 1996, therefore, the order of cancellation of allotment is neither binding upon the appellants nor can adversely affect their ownership in possession of the suit land more particularly in the circumstances that the registered sale deeds executed in their favour have not been set aside/cancelled till date in any appropriate proceedings. It is argued with vehemence that had the appellants been provided with an opportunity of hearing, they would have raised their plea that they are not privy to any alleged misrepresentation made by the original allottees when otherwise, they are not in any manner related to them. In addition, it is submitted that had the appellants been informed and joined in the proceedings initiated for cancellation of allotment of land, which admittedly the respondents intend to sell by way of auction, the appellants would have participated in the auction and claimed their preferential rights on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour by the original allottees and they being in possession of the suit land on the basis thereof. It is vehemently argued that as the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the principles of natural justice for failure of the authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, the same is liable to be set aside qua the appellants with a direction to the authority concerned to pass a fresh order after giving notice to the affected parties. In support of his contention, he has referred to judgment of this Court in RSA No. 4357 of 2012 decided on 19.10.2012. He has further produced before the Court the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala in similar set of circumstances that came to be affirmed by this Court in the aforesaid regular second appeal.;