PROPERTY LAW- I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Material Facts 2 Issues.. 3

Critical Analysis. 3

Judgement... 5

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR

Page 1

PROPERTY LAW- I

MATERIAL FACTS

Appellant applied for transfer of land on the ground that he possession of this land since !hariff 1"#".

as in continuous

$anchayat %amiti& Fero'pur& respondent (o.1& )hereinafter referred to as the *respondent*+ filed an appeal in the Court of %ales Commissioner& Fero'pur on 1"th May& 1""5. ,he %ales Commissioner& Fero'pur -ide his order dated .th June& 1""5 returned the appeal on the ground that the Act and /ules pertaining to transfer of land applica0le. ere not

/espondent then filed an appeal 0efore the Chief %ales Commissioner )1eputy Commissioner+& Fero'pur against the transfer of the land in fa-our of the appellant. ,he appellate authority after perusing the record came to the conclusion that the

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR

Page 2

PROPERTY LAW- I

appellant had ta2en the land on lease from $anchayat %amiti for a sum of /s.33&33345 in the year 1"#"5"3 -ide receipt (o. 6# dated 2nd May& 1"#".

%u0se7uent to the ta2ing of the land on lease& the appellant filed an application for allotment of land treating it to 0e in the o nership of the %tate 0eing a $ac2age 1eal $roperty. ,he appellate authority found that the land 0elonged to the 1istrict 8oard and on the a0olition of the 1istrict 8oard the land Fero'pur as transferred to the $anchayat %amiti&

It as held that the land did not 0elong to the %tate of $un9a0 and the transfer made in fa-our of the appellant as 0ad in la as ell as fraudulent. Aggrie-ed against this order of the appellate authority the appellant filed a re-ision 0efore the Commissioner& Fero'pur 1i-ision& hich as accepted. Aggrie-ed against the said order of the re-isional authority& respondent filed a petition hich as accepted. rit

,he :igh Court held that the land as not a $ac2age 1eal $roperty hich had 0een transferred 0y the Central ;o-ernment to the %tate ;o-ernment on payment of price. ,hat the land 0elonged to the 1istrict 8oard and on the dissolution of the 8oard& the land /espondent the appellant as transferred and mutated in fa-our of the respondent. as found to 0e the o ner of the land and the sale made in fa-our of as held to 0e in-alid and ithout 9urisdiction. Accordingly& the order

of the re-isional authority as set aside and the sale made in fa-our of the appellant as also set aside.

ISSUES

<hether the property as a pac2age deal property or not = <hether the appellant ill get the protection under s.>1 of ,ransfer of $roperty Act

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

$ac2age deal property is the property

hich is transferred 0y the Central

Page 3

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR

PROPERTY LAW- I

;o-ernment to the %tate ;o-ernment on payment of price.

Clause )15A+ of %ection 2 of the $un9a0 $ac2age 1eal $roperties )1isposal+ Act& 1"6.& defines the ?pac2age deal property? as the property surplus e-acuee property 0y the %tate ;o-ernment. hich as ta2en o-er as

@n transfer 0y the Central ;o-ernment all such lands -ested in the $ro-incial ;o-ernment under the aforesaid Act. ,his conclusi-ely sho s that the property as not a ?pac2age deal property? as as not in the o nership of

contended 0y the learned counsel for the appellant and

the %tate ;o-ernment. ,he property 0elonged to the 1istrict 8oard.

It has 0een pro-ided under %ection 11# of the Aila $arishad Act& 1".1 that on the a0olition of the 1istrict 8oards& all the assets and lia0ilities as the ;o-ernment may order4direct. ould de-ol-e on the $anchayat %amitis functioning in the districts or in the Aila $arishad in such manner @n the a0olition of the 1istrict 8oards& their properties ;o-ernment dated 13th Fe0ruary& 1".2. ere apportioned amongst

the Aila $arishads and the $anchayat %amitis under the order of the %tate ,he property situated in -illage !hai ) hich is in dispute+ has 0een sho n in %chedule *:* anneBed to the order of the %tate ;o-ernment dated 13th Fe0ruary& 1".2.

,hereafter on a re7uest

as made to transfer the land to the respondent and so it

as made clear that the go-ernment land situated at -illage Fattu ala& ;ame ala& !hai and Mamdot 0elonged to the Aila $arishard and thereafter the land stood transferred to the respondent.

,his also sho s that the land did not 0elong to the %tate go-ernment 0ut 0elonged to the Aila $arishad4$anchayat %amiti as the successor to the 1istrict 8oard and hich in turn as transferred to the respondent. ,he learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the appellant fide purchaser for consideration pro-ided under %ection >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act as 0ona

ithout notice and& therefore& the protection as a-aila0le to him.

%ection >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act readsC ?>1. ,ransfer 0y ostensi0le o ner <here& ith the consent& eBpress or implied& of the persons interested in immo-a0le
KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR Page >

PROPERTY LAW- I

property& a person is the ostensi0le o ner of such property and transfers the same for consideration& the transfer shall not 0e -oida0le on the ground that the transferor as not authorised to ma2e itC pro-ided that the transferee& after ta2ing reasona0le care to ascertin that the transferor had po er to ma2e the transfer& has acted in good faith.?

Dnder section >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act& transfer made 0y an ostensi0le o ner ith the consent& eBpress or implied of the real o ner is protected pro-ided that the transferee after ta2ing reasona0le care to ascertain that the transferor had the po er to ma2e transfer had acted in good faith. Eearned counsel for the appellant as una0le to sho from the record that the %tate go-ernment had transferred the land in fa-our of the appellant acting as an ostensi0le o ner ith the consent& eBpress or implied& gi-en 0y the respondent in fa-our of the %tate ;o-ernment. Eearned counsel for the appellant as also una0le to sho that the appellant had

ta2en any care to ascertain that the %tate ;o-ernment

as either the o ner or had

the po er to transfer the land and that he had acted in good faith.

@n the contrary& it has 0een 0rought on record that the appellant had ta2en the land on lease from the respondent in the year 1"#"5"3 hich clearly demonstrates that he 2ne that the respondent as the o ner of the land. In spite of 2no ing all these facts the appellant did not ta2e care to ascertain the title of his -endor. In these circumstances the appellant is not entitled to the protection pro-ided under section >1 of the ,ransfer of $roperty Act.

JUDGEMENT
,hese appeals ha-e 0een filed against a common 9udgment of the $un9a0 and :aryana :igh Court& herein the :igh Court has set aside the order of the re-isional authority as transferred to the appellant on payment of )Commissioner& Fero'pur+ and cancelled the sale made 0y ,ehsildar)%ales+ in fa-our of the appellants. Court held that he land /s..2&.2545 out of hich the appellants had initially deposited a sum of /s.3&3#245 0eing
KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR Page 5

PROPERTY LAW- I

the 1423th share of the prioce challan. ,he remaining amount

ithin 15 days in the treasury on the presentation of the as to 0e deposited ith interest F 13G in 1" e7uated much ere una0le to state as to ho

installments. Eearned counsel for the parties

amount has 0een paid 0y the appellants to the %tate ;o-ernment. In the circumstances& e direct that the appellants )in all four appeals+ hate-er amount has 0een deposited 0y them ould 0e entitled to the refund of ith the %tate ;o-ernment. ,he %tate e do not find any merit in

;o-ernment is directed to refund the amount deposited 0y the appellants ithin a period of three months from today. For the reasons stated a0o-e& these appeals and the same are dismissed ith no order as to costs.

KASHMIR SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI FEROZPUR

Page .