Mst. SUGHRA And Another vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petitions challenging the cancellation of an allotment of land. The petitioners contend that they are bona fide purchasers for value and were denied a fair hearing regarding the cancellation of the allotment originally made to their predecessor-in-interest, Daud Khan. They argue that the finding that the allotment was bogus is incorrect, asserting that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court had previously upheld similar claims from the same estates even in the absence of verified records from India. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, specifically addressing the validity of the cancellation of the allotment and the petitioners' status as bona fide purchasers, while also noting that the second petition is subject to a question of limitation. The Court ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeals.
- Can a bona fide purchaser for value challenge the cancellation of an allotment made to their predecessor-in-interest?
- Does the absence of verified records from India invalidate an allotment claim if similar claims were previously upheld by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Is the cancellation of an allotment valid if the affected parties were not provided a hearing?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---In both the petitions, the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11-10-1988 by which two writ petitions of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners being bona fide purchaser for value were not heard, and the ground of cancellation of the, allotment of their predecessor-in-interest Daud Khan that was bogus, is not correct because verifications of claims of persons from the same estates notwithstanding that the record from India had not been received were upheld by the Settlement Commissioner and the learned High Court.
3. Leave is granted to consider the aforesaid contentions subject to the question of limitation in the second petition. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,000 in each case. Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with permission to file additional documents, if so advised.