ROMILA DUBEY, F.C. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 14 of the Nazool Lands (Transfer) Rules 1956 against the order dated 12.7.2005 of Commissioner, Jalandhar and order dated 1.10.2003 of the Collector Kapurthala.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Petitioner (Pritam Singh) was allotted Nazool land measuring 107 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in Village Bhilan, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, vide order dated 1.6.1968. During consolidation operations, the land was reduced to 51 Kanals 11 Marlas. Thereafter, it was alleged that the allottee (Pritam Singh) transferred the land in question, to different persons i.e. to Resham Singh son of Amrik Singh (24 Marlas) and to Darshan Singh so of Jit Singh of Village Jhal Thikriwal (27 Kanals 11 Marlas) in violation of the Nazool Land Transfer Rules, 1956. Accordingly, the petitioner (Pritam Singh) was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 23.6.2003 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 9.7.2003 denying any agreement with the above mentioned persons and submitted that Girdawari has been done in their names in collusion with revenue official and that a civil suit has been filed by him for possession. The Collector, Kapurthala, found the said explanation unsatisfactory and ordered resumption of the land in dispute, in the name of the State, vide dated 1.10.2003. The petitioner (Petitioner Singh) filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar mainly on the grounds that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner (Pritam Singh) to explain his case before cancelling the allotment, that the petitioner did not execute any agreement, that the Nazool Land once allotted can not be resumed, and that the petitioner was in possession of suit land at the spot. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the Collector has passed a detailed speaking order. Both Resham Singh and Darshan Singh stated that they already entered into agreements for the transfer of land with the petitioner. The civil suit is alleged to have been filed in 1999 and the latest position has not been disclosed by the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that the possession of the land in dispute is with Resham Singh and Darshan Singh. The Commissioner, therefore, found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same vide order dated 12.7.2005. Hence, the present revision petition. The counsel for the petitioner now through legal heirs is in possession in the land in dispute and never violated any condition of allotment. The counsel further argued that the alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which the allotment has been cancelled is a forged and fabricated document and the petitioner never violated any condition of Sale under the Nazool Land Transfer Rules. The counsel further contended that mere agreement to sell does not confer any title. In support of his contended that counsel referred to judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Raj Kumar Baghel Singh v. Davider Kaur and others, 1998(4) RCR(Civil) 659 : 1999(1) PLJ 599. The counsel further contended that even for the sake of argu-ment there was an agreement to sell the land in favour of Darshan Singh and Resham Singh was made by Pritam Singh even then the mere agreement to sell is not the sale agreement itself and thus if it is not sale the petitioner have not violated any provision of Nazool Land Transfer Rules or any condition of allotment. The counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani decided on 5.5.2003 as reported in 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 828, wherein it is held as under :- "Transfer of Property Act, Section 54 - Contract for sale - Does not confer title in immovable property - If a person entered into possession over immovable property under contract of sale and is in peaceful and settled possession of property with consent of person in whom vests title - He is entitled to protect his possession against whole world except a person having a tile better that what he or his vendor possesses - If he is in possession of property in part performance of contract of sale and requirements of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act are satisfied, he may protect his possession even against true owner." The counsel further argued that the Collector has no power to resume the land allotted under the Nazool and Transfer Rules, 1956. The counsel further argued that bar on alienation as provided under Rule 8 of the Nazool Land (Transfer) Rules does not apply to his case as the bar was imposed only on 18.3.1991 whereas the allotment was made in the year 1968 and full price of land has been deposited by the petitioner and as such the Collector loses the jurisdiction over the land and thus Rule 9A(1) does not empower the Collector to cancel the allotment on the ground that the permission of the Government is required to sell the land. The counsel argued that no sale deed has ever been executed by the petitioner and as such no sale has taken place and there is no violation on the part of the petitioner.
(3.) ON the other hand the Senior State Counsel argued that the petitioner has sold the land to Resham Singh son of Amrik Singh and Darshan Singh son of Jit Singh both residents of Village Jhal Thikriwal and have thus violated the conditions of allotment. The counsel further argued that a proper show cause notice was issued to Pritam Singh and land was resumed considering the reply of Pritam Singh which was rejected by the Commissioner being without any merit.;