CHANDIGARH: To avoid sham transactions in transfer of properties, especially in cases where people are found to be alienating lands beyond their shares in land, the Punjab and Haryana high court has asked both Punjab and Haryana to inform the court if there is any software that can check such illegalities.
“At this stage, the states of Punjab and Haryana are put to notice as to whether there is any software with the sub-registrar enabling them to trace out as to whether the person/vendor in a sale deed is alienating the land within his share or beyond it,” the HC has ordered.
Court has directed the principal secretaries/additional chief secretaries, departments of revenue of both the states to file an affidavit in this regard. Court made it clear that “the aforesaid request is being made in the wake of numerous litigations being faced by this court”.
The matter has been fixed for Sept 2.
Justice Harkesh Manuja passed the order while hearing a second appeal filed by two private parties. The appellant had challenged the order dated Oct 17, 2018, passed by additional district judge, Fatehabad, on the issue.
The facts of the case are that a 2-kanal, 19-marla piece of land was purchased by one Prem Kumar from Lajwanti through registered sale deed dated April 23, 1987. Till 2003, Prem Kumar sold 2 kanal and 12 marlas of the land through different deeds and was left with only seven marlas. However, going over and above his share of seven marlas, Prem Kumar sold another 18 marlas of land in favour of some private persons on Nov 6, 2003, followed by mutation dated Dec 24, 2003, who in turns sold the said 18 marlas in favour of Satbir Singh and another (appellants in the present case) through sale deed dated May 7, 2004, followed by mutation dated July 10, 2006.
The court was informed that those who had purchased land from Prem Kumar through sale deeds dated Nov 6, 2003 and May 7, 2004 being illegal, null and void while claiming that at the time of execution of those two sale deeds, Prem Kumar was left with ownership and possession of merely seven marlas of land and thus, he could not have alienated 18 marlas.
However, those who had purchased this 18-marla piece of land were claiming that they had purchased the land after carefully verifying facts from revenue authorities.
Hearing all parties, the court held that once the vendee of appellants was never left with the ownership of 18 marlas of land, any alienation made to the said extent being over and above the land vested with him could not be protected in terms of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by holding the appellants to be bona fide purchased against valuable consideration despite having purchased the suit property upon due verification of the revenue record in favour of their vendors. “The appellants cannot be termed to be bonafide purchasers qua the property in question to the extent of 18 marlas, the appeal is dismissed. However, at the best, they can claim damages against their vendees,” the HC has held.
