VED KUMARI Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, (for short the Act), in this writ petition.

(2.) FACTS first:

(3.) THE provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act protects the bonafide purchaser for consideration from true owner In the present case, there is no doubt that the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for consideration from the true owner As stated supra, Shri Som Parkash purchased the property in dispute in public auction on July 27, 1967. The sale was confirmed on August 17, 1967 and the sale certificate was issued on November 4, 1976 and he sold this property to the present Petitioner on December 2, 1974 for Rs. 19,500/ -. Out of the sale price, Rs. 15000/ - were paid before the Sub -Registrar to the vendor. The property was under mortgage with the mortgagee vide registered mortgage -deed dated December 3, 1972 and the mortgage amount was kept as trust with the vendee for payment to the previous mortgagee Smt Bhagdai and Rs. 2000/ - were received under agreement of sale dated November 17, 1974. Thus, there can be no dispute that the entire sale consideration was paid by the present Petitioner to her vendor. An alienee from an ostensible owner is protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act if he or she can establish that the sale in their favour was with the consent, express or implied, of the true owner and that it was for consideration and that they had taken reasonable care to ascertain that the transferee had the power to make the transfer and acted in good faith. In the instant case, the present Petitioner fulfil all the tests. A somewhat identical matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Damodar Dass and Ors. v. Joginder Singh and others L. P. A. 181 of 1972 (Letters Patents Appeal No. 181 of 1972). (Decided on 18 September, 1975) In the case before the Letters Patent Bench, the material facts were that the property of a Muslim was declared evacuee and allotted to some displaced person. The Muslim Evacuee land -lord moved the authorities that he did not migrate to Pakistan and his land could not be declared evacuee property. The Rehabilitation authorities did not disturb the allottee but gave an equivalent land to the Muslim landlord who contended that he did not become evacuee. The allottee affected sales for consideration out of the land allotted to him. The Rehabilitation authorities retrieved part of the land allotted to him for the reasons that excess land had been allotted to him The transferee from the Muslim landlord approached the High Court and raised the plea that the transfer in their favour could not be invalidated land sought protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and on these premises the Bench observed as under: