Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of four Regular Second Appeals bearing R.S.A. Nos. 3156 of 2004, 332 of 2005, 333 of 2005 and 334 of 2005 as common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals.
(2.) IN the present case, the suit land along with other land, which was the Nazool land, was allotted/sold to one Channan Singh vide sale certificate dated 1.4.1969 (Ex. P3). The sale certificate Ex. P3 was issued to Chanan Singh after making the entire payment. Subsequently, the mutation was sanctioned in his favour. In the aforesaid sale certificate, no condition of restraints for alienating the suit land for a particular period was imposed. At the time of issuance of the said certificate. Rule 11 of the Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules') was applicable and that Rule did not contain any such condition prohibiting the allottee from transferring the land for a particular period. Subsequently, on 30.6.1971, Chanan Singh sold the suit land to one Gopal Dass for a consideration, and from Gopal Dass the plaintiffs purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 8.1.1974 for a consideration. On execution of the sale deeds, they took possession of the suit land. On the basis of those sale deeds, the mutation of ownership was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, all the plaintiffs were recorded as owners in possession of the suit land throughout in the revenue record. The plaintiffs also raised some construction on the suit land.
(3.) AFTER 23 years of the aforesaid sale made in favour of the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 - Collector, District Kaputhala issued notice dated 5.2.1997 to the plaintiffs to show as to why their names may not be removed from the revenue record showing their possession on the suit land as owners with a view to resume the possession of the suit land. Feeling aggrieved against the said notice, the instant four suits were filed.;