ORDER Rupan Deol Bajaj, FC. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 30.3.1999 vide which he has upset the orders of the Collector Khamano dated 30.7.1996, in the matter of allotment of surplus area to Balbir Singh allottee. Arguments in this case were heard on 19.1.2001 and orders were reserved. Further, case was listed for announcement for 16.3.2001 and orders are pronounced accordingly today when none is present. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Bhajan Singh filed an application for cancellation of allotment of land measuring 36K-6M comprised in Khewat No. 100, Khatoni No. 125, Rect. No. 25, Killa Nos. 18/2, 19, 21, 22, 23-1, as per jamabandi for the year 1985-86 situated in village Amrala, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Bhajan Singh submitted that the surplus land of the big landowner Gurdial Singh, was allotted to Balbir Singh on 16.7.1987 and mutation to that effect No. 1701 was also sanctioned. Balbir Singh has since sold the total land allotted vide sale deeds dated 6.6.1994, 10.6.1994 and dated 14.11.1994 in favour of Surinder Singh, Kesar Singh, Jagtar Singh and Labh Singh sons of Puran Singh, in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment. As per the law, the allottees were debarred from transferring their rights in the land allotted to them to any other person till the expiry of period of 15 years. In this case, Balbir Singh had violated the conditions of the terms of allotment. Therefore, his allotment be cancelled and the land may be allotted afresh to the otherwise eligible landless persons. After hearing both the parties, the Collector held that since the stipulation of 15 years had not been mentioned in the jamabandi for 1990-91, the vendees were competent to purchase the land. Thus, the Collector Agrarian dismissed the application of Bhajan Singh, with the following observations :- "I have perused the records on file and have also heard the arguments of learned Counsels. I am inclined to agree with the contentions made by Shri S.S. Kang, Advocate. The authority mentioned by Shri Gurdev Singh applies if State is the party. Here the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application. Moreover, the respondent Nos. I am inclined to agree with the contentions made by Shri S.S. Kang, Advocate. The authority mentioned by Shri Gurdev Singh applies if State is the party. Here the applicant has no locus standi to file the present application. Moreover, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are bona fide purchasers and the stipulation of 15 years period, before the land could not be transferred having not been mentioned in the jamabandi for 1990-91, the rights of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are safe. Moreover, cancellation of sale deeds is not within the purview of this Court. All the more fresh look at allotment cant be given at this stage. The applicant may seek the remedy in civil Court if he so desires." 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Collector (Agrarian) Khamano, Kaka Singh and Labh Singh, brothers of Bhajan Singh, who died on 15.5.1995, represented their deceased brother and filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who after hearing the counsel for both the parties, accepted the appeal vide his order dated 30.3.1999 and set aside the orders of the Collector (Agrn.) Khamano. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner, Patiala Surinder Singh and others filed the present revision before this Court. During the course of hearings, it was pointed out by the State Counsel that Balbir Singh original allottee being a relevant party, must be summoned. Service was made upon him in the ordinary method and then through Mustri Munadi but he did not appear inspite of it and he was proceeded against ex-parte on 7.7.2000. The case was finally listed for arguments on 12.1.2001 when counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments at length and thereafter both counsel were asked to clarify certain points which had arisen during the course of arguments and they were also directed to file citations in support of their claims. Both counsel were further directed to address the Court regarding the effect of the death of Bhajan Singh, complainant in the case and the case was adjourned to 19.1.2001. On that date counsel for the petitioners filed the necessary documents as directed, and the respondents also filed the citations in support of the claims of their parties. Orders were reserved. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and I have also carefully gone through the record of the courts below. On that date counsel for the petitioners filed the necessary documents as directed, and the respondents also filed the citations in support of the claims of their parties. Orders were reserved. 5. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and I have also carefully gone through the record of the courts below. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Bhajan Singh, the complainant, during his life time in the year 1994 had filed an application for the cancellation of land of Balbir Singh and for allotment of the same to him. However, as per counsel the record file No. 894/525-A of Collector (Agrn.) Samrala (now Khamano) reveals that at page 58 of the file, Bhajan Singh had made the statement that he had no relationship with the original landlord and he was paying Batai to the landlord Gurdial Singh and he had not made any application for allotment of surplus area to him. It clearly showed that Bhajan Singh never challenged the order of allotment made in favour of Balbir Singh. According to the counsel, the respondents, who were the brothers of Bhajan Singh, had no legal right to continue with the complaint made by Bhajan Singh and as such the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala was not maintainable. He further argued that under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, a vendee who accepted transfer in good faith based upon the entry in record of rights in favour of his transferror, was fully protected under this law, if no circumstance indicated that he should go further behind the revenue record to make further enquiries. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently stressed that the petitioners with all their diligence and with all efforts, had verified the position from the record of authorities and could not find any entry which could have suggested that the disputed land, which they had purchased, was surplus land allotted to Balbir Singh, and that there was any condition or indication that the land could not be sold for a period of 15 years. No such note or indication had anywhere been entered in the revenue record. He also submitted that it was the Tehsildar and other revenue officials who were the part and parcel of revenue machinery who executed the sale deed of the disputed land by way of 3 sale deeds on 6.6.1994 (16K-0M) for Rs. No such note or indication had anywhere been entered in the revenue record. He also submitted that it was the Tehsildar and other revenue officials who were the part and parcel of revenue machinery who executed the sale deed of the disputed land by way of 3 sale deeds on 6.6.1994 (16K-0M) for Rs. 1,80,000/- on 10.6.1994 (6k-16M) for Rs. 76,500/- and on 14.11.1994 (13K- 10M) for Rs. 1,51,000/-. Even the mutation of the land was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners by the Tehsildar, which under the law is done only after visiting the spot. As such, the Revenue Authorities themselves were the main executing agencies in furtherance of the purchase of land by the petitioners. The petitioners with all their diligence and care found no such conditions and equally, even the Revenue Authroties also did not keep any entry in the revenue record regarding the necessary conditions and, therefore, the petitioners were fully protected by the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the land purchased by them against consideration was legal and valid in every manner. Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the written arguments filed by them before the Commissioner, Patiala Division available at pages 34-36 of the Commissioner file should also be taken into consideration for deciding the case. In those arguments the petitioners inter alia, had taken the plea that they were bona fide purchasers in terms of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector Agrarian to cancel the sale deed because the same could only be challenged in the civil Court. Bhajan Singh deceased had already filed the civil suit that had been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioners filed the following authorities in support of his contentions:- 1981 PLJ 646 1989 PLJ 254 1988 PLJ 123 (DB) MR 130/83-84 and M.R. 1/84-85 decided by the then FCR. 1988(2) RRR 490 6. Counsel for the respondents pleaded that Balbir Singh had violated the condition of non-transfer of the land allotted for 15 years when he sold the land prior to the expiry of the said period and, therefore, transaction made by him with the petitioners was illegal. 1988(2) RRR 490 6. Counsel for the respondents pleaded that Balbir Singh had violated the condition of non-transfer of the land allotted for 15 years when he sold the land prior to the expiry of the said period and, therefore, transaction made by him with the petitioners was illegal. He cited PLJ 1986 page 668, RRR 1992(2) page 273, PLJ 1992 page 381 in support of his contentions that purchase could not be considered bona fide and purchaser was not entitled to the protection of the provisions under the Transfer of Property Act if the sale certificate carried a prohibition against alienation for stipulated period. He accordingly pleaded that the sale of land purchased by the petitioner from Balbir Singh may be cancelled and it may be allotted to the respondents who were the L.Rs. of deceased Bhajan Singh. Counsel for the respondents could not give any authority or arguments on the effect of the death of Bhajan Singh and constituting his brothers as L.Rs. of the deceased. 7. Perusal of the record of the Courts below show that under Rule 10(e) of the Punjab Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973, the allottee was not competent to transfer his rights in the land allotted to him to any person till he became the owner or before the expiry of 15 years of the date of possession, whichever was later. In this case, the allottee, on his written request was allowed to deposit the full consideration of the land in question i.e. Rs. 3203/- in lump sum, under Section 15(3) of the Utilization of Surplus Area Scheme, 1973 and Section 12(1) of Punjab Land Reforms Rules, 1972, vide order dated 25.11.1986 of Collector Agrarian, Samrala. Therefore, the period of 15 years started from the year 1986 when the land was transferred from the Punjab Govt. in favour of Shri Balbir Singh the allottee and ended in the year 2001. 8. The surplus area file reveals that S. Bhupinder Singh, PCS, Collector Agrarian, vide his order dated 26.12.1979 allotted surplus area of Sh. Gurdial Singh, measuring 36K-6M to Shri Balbir Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh, resident of village Bhamian. Thereafter the land in question was, as a matter of procedure, first transferred in the name of Punjab Government and thereafter the same was allotted to Shri Balbir Singh in compliance with the orders of the Collector Agrarian, Samrala. Gurdial Singh, measuring 36K-6M to Shri Balbir Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh, resident of village Bhamian. Thereafter the land in question was, as a matter of procedure, first transferred in the name of Punjab Government and thereafter the same was allotted to Shri Balbir Singh in compliance with the orders of the Collector Agrarian, Samrala. On the request of Balbir Singh warrant of possession was also issued in his favour on 14.11.1986 by the Collector Agrarian, Samrala proprietory rights were conferred upon him on 27.11.1986 and mutation of the land was also sanctioned in his favour. The necessary entries were incorporated in the jamabandi. 9. Though there was a clear bar of 15 years in the law on the allottee for transferring the allotted land to any other person, yet the revenue record available nowhere indicated that the said condition had anywhere or ever been recorded to this effect. The jamabandi of the relevant year was also silent regarding this condition. Therefore, Balbir Singh allottee further sold the land after just 8 years, in favour of Surinder Singh, Kesar Singh, Jagtar Singh and Labh Singh sons of Puran Singh, resident of Panjkoha through registered sale deeds. Necessary entries to this effect had also been made in jamabandi for the year 1995-96. The sale of land by the allottee could not have taken place, had the concerned revenue officers and staff made proper entries in the revenue record to this effect and if the Tehsildar and other concerned staff had not approved the registered sale deeds and the mutations during the year 1996. 10. It is clear that the peitioners are bona fide purchasers and they have relied upon whatever was available on the revenue record and had invested their money to purchase the said land from Balbir Singh. Therefore, the main fault here lies with the Revenue Authorities who first of all did not incorporate the necessary entries in the revenue record regarding the condition of not selling the land for 15 years being surplus land and thereafter also registered the three sale deeds of the land in dispute vide which the same was purchased by the petitioners and, finally also sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioners qua the said land. Balbir Singh is also equally at fault who defrauded not only the Government, out also the petitioners. Balbir Singh is also equally at fault who defrauded not only the Government, out also the petitioners. The respondents who were the brothers of Bhajan Singh, do not have any locus standi to pursue the case for allotting the said land to them, because Bhajan Singh during his life time, had categorically made a statement before the Collector (Agrn.) Samrala that he had not applied for the allotment of the surplus land and on which he was a sitting tenant and he had very easily vacated the land for its necessary allotment to Balbir Singh, being the eligible person. So Bhajan Singh was not interested and accordingly was not eligible to get the surplus land allotted to him in his life time. Therefore, he could not later on aspire to get the same allotted to him. If the case of Bhajan Singh is not on a sound footing for allotment, his brothers also cannot have any claim as his L.Rs. and are not entitled to get the land allotted to them. Bhajan Singh had also filed a Civil Suit No. 1108-RT of 28.11.1992 in the Court of Addl. Senior Sub-Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib against Balbir Singh, for possession of the said land, which was dismissed by the Court. No further appeal or revision had reportedly been filed by Bhajan Singh or the present respondents. Accordingly, the respondents had already lost on this account also. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that no purpose would be served by cancelling the allotment of Balbir Singh, as decided by the Commissioner, since the punishment would not be visited on him thereby but on the vendees. The vendees, in the particular circumstances of the case cannot be held to be at fault since they had exercised due diligence while purchaseing the land. At the same time Bhajan Singh (deceased), the original complainant now represented by his L.Rs. appellant cannot be treated as an interfering busy body, but as a vigilant citizen and the revenue authorities have much to be grateful to him for, since he brought the lapse of the revenue authorities to notice. At the same time Bhajan Singh (deceased), the original complainant now represented by his L.Rs. appellant cannot be treated as an interfering busy body, but as a vigilant citizen and the revenue authorities have much to be grateful to him for, since he brought the lapse of the revenue authorities to notice. In the circumstances of the case, however, the application of Bhajan Singh has been taken note to the extent that action is ordered against the allottee Balbir Singh and the defaulting Revenue Officials, but the application is dismissed in so far as his prayer for cancellation of allotment of the land to Balbir Singh and of the sale deeds executed by him is concerned. 12. The revision petition is accepted and the petitioners are allowed to retain the land being the bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 30.7.1999 is set aside and those of the Collector (Agrarian) dated 30.7.1996 are upheld. I further direct that a legal proceeding/a criminal case should be initiated against Balbir Singh who defrauded the Government by selling the land by concealing material facts and thus has also violated the purpose, object and other conditions contained in the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 and Rules framed thereunder. Likewise the revenue officials concerned, who did not make the proper entries in the revenue record regarding this land, should also be proceeded against under the law for their acts of omission and commission which enabled Balbir Singh to sell the allotted land before the minimum prescribed period. I also further direct the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana to get the revenue record in respect of allotment of surplus area of Sub-Divisions Samrala and Khamano checked in particular and that of the other Sub-Divisions of the district in general, and to ensure that all such necessary entries are incorporated in the relevant files to this effect on time-bound basis, so that such lapse should not occur again in future. Announced. Revision allowed.