ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - All these three petitions under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 seek to set aside the order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala vide which he set aside the entire allotment of 157 kanals (12-3-3/4 S.As.) comprising khasra Nos. 66//6(8-0), 7(8-0), 8/2(7-12), 9(8-0), 12(8-0), 13/2(7-12), 14(8-0), 15(8-0), 16(8-0), 17(8-0), 19(8-0), 67//1/2(1-6), 2(7-7), 3(7-10), 4 min (5- 0), 7(2-16), 8(7-12), 9(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8-0), 13(7-12), 44//23 min (0-13) situated in revenue estate of Maqsudpur, Had Bast No. 19 Tehsil Bholath, Distt. Kapurthala. This allotment was made by Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Bholath on 5.5.1997 in favour of Jagir Singh etc. L.Rs. of Sher Singh allottee. Though the impugned order this land has vested in the Gram Panchayat whereas the ownership earlier was vested in the custodian/Central Government because it was evacuee land and was allotted to Jagir Singh etc. respondents No. 4 to 7 against the land abandoned in Pakistan. Since the subject-matter of all the three petitions is the same piece of land, these are being disposal of through a single order, a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files. 2. As per allegations contained in the petition, the impugned order dated 31.10.2000 was passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his capacity as Collector which is against the law and facts and is, therefore, not maintainable. Sher Singh son of Khushal Singh had abandoned land in Pakistan and after his death his legal representatives namely Jagir Singh etc. respondents No. 4 to 7 got the land allotted. Tehsildar (S) prepared the proposal on 5.5.1997 and parchi of allotment of this land was issued. The physical possession of the area was delivered on 9.5.2000. After coming to the conclusion that allotment was genuine, the petitioners purchased the land through registered sale deeds and after execution of sale deeds, mutations of exchange of ownership (Mutations No. 3426 to 3436) were sanctioned in the name of petitioners. The counsel averred that these petitioners are bona fide purchasers and hence their rights are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The dispute arose when one Lakhvir Singh, respondent No. 2, filed a revision petition against the order dated 5.5.1997 of the Tehsildar (S) before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The counsel averred that these petitioners are bona fide purchasers and hence their rights are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The dispute arose when one Lakhvir Singh, respondent No. 2, filed a revision petition against the order dated 5.5.1997 of the Tehsildar (S) before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Gram Panchayat was first shown as respondent No. 35 but lateron Gram Panchayat Maqsudpur was shown as petitioner No. 2 in the impugned order. In fact, by showing respondent as petitioner, the order goes against the provisions of the law particularly when Sarpanch himself was a witness in all the sale deeds. Under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955 framed thereunder, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no powers to change entries in the column of ownership of jamabandis for the year 1960-61 to 1997-98. The powers vest only in civil court or in Financial Commissioner Revenue Lakhwinder Singh petitioner in that case is an Advocate who defended the interest of the Panchayat. 4. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat challenged the allotment before the District Development and Panchayats Officer-cum-Collector under Sections 7 and 20 of the Village Common Lands Act, 1961, but the request was turned down on 29.1.1991 as the entries of ownership were not in favour of the Panchayat. The ownership was shown to be that of the local proprietors. The counsel averred that after this decision, Panchayat should have gone in appeal under the Act ibid. The Chief Sales Commissioner is not the Collector under the provision of Village Common Lands Act. 5. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala has decided the matter under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. It is settled law laid down in 1968-PLR-1 that where there is a dispute about vesting of the land of custodian in favour of other institutions, the order has to be passed by the Custodian General under Section 27 of the Administration of the Evacuee Properties Act, 1950. Further the said order could be challenged before the Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 54 of the Act ibid, but it was not done. As such, the order is without jurisdiction, void, illegal and deserves to be set aside. 6. Sh. Further the said order could be challenged before the Financial Commissioner Revenue under Section 54 of the Act ibid, but it was not done. As such, the order is without jurisdiction, void, illegal and deserves to be set aside. 6. Sh. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate appeared on behalf of legal heirs of the allottee in M.R. No. 56-A of 2000 and for respondents No. 5 to 7 in M.R. No. 52 of 2000 and averred that Sher Singh son of Khushal Singh had abandoned land in Pakistan and after his death his legal heirs, Jagir Singh etc. were entitled to get the land allotted. After completion of necessary formalities, submission of documents required and scrutiny of record, the Tehsildar (S) came to the conclusion that the claimants were unsatisfied persons and were entitled to allotment of the unsatisfied claim of 12-3-3/4 S.As. vide order dated 5.5.1997, he approved the proposal for allotment and physical possession was delivered on 9.5.2000. The mutation of inheritance had also been sanctioned in favour of legal heirs. The counsel contended that this land was allotted under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 in compliance with the orders of Government and with reference to endorsement made by Chief Minister, Punjab dated 5.4.1997 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has wrongly passed the impugned order vide which land in dispute has been transferred in favour of Gram Panchayat. In case of dispute of title, the Panchayat could file an appeal under Section 11 of the Village Common Lands Act, 1961 to get a declaration of title. The Chief Settlement Commissioner has no powers to decide the title of the case. From entries in the jamabandis for the years 1982-83 to 1997-98, it is clear that land is "matrooqa" to the extent of 7/8 shares and local malkan are owners to the extent of 1/8th share and, as such, land was rightly allotted to the legal heirs of the displaced person, Sher Singh. This land is not a shamlat land under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. 7. Sh. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Sh. Jagir Singh, respondent No. 4, legal heir of Sh. Sher Singh and filed separate petition No. M.R. No. 56-A of 2000 in this court. On the whole he supported the arguments of Sh. Chauhan, Advocate. 7. Sh. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Sh. Jagir Singh, respondent No. 4, legal heir of Sh. Sher Singh and filed separate petition No. M.R. No. 56-A of 2000 in this court. On the whole he supported the arguments of Sh. Chauhan, Advocate. He urged that if the allotted land was cancelled, alternative land is to be allotted to the legal heirs being the successors of the displaced person. In this respect, the counsel cited 2000(1)-LLR-580 in support of his version. Similarly Sh. H.P. Singh Raja, advocate appeared for vendees, Sh. Ranjit Singh etc. petitioners in M.R. No. 57 of 2000 and in M.R. No. 52 of 2000 as respondents No. 8 to 11 (performa respondents) and submitted that Ranjit Singh, Bakhtawar Singh and Kuldip Singh sons of Mohinder Singh purchased the land measuring 11 kanals 12 marlas in Rect. No. 66 vide Regd. Deed dated 7.9.1999 and Devinder Kaur widow of Gurmail Singh purchased land measuring 13 kanals 14 marlas (in Rect. No. 67) vide Regd. Sale Deed dated 7.9.1999. They are bona fide purchasers and their rights are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The order under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act passed by the Collector as Chief Settlement Commissioner does not fulfil the requirement of Section 24 and is, thus, not sustainable. 8. Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 (Gram Panchayat) and rebutted the above arguments saying that Chief Settlement Commissioner has rightly observed that Tehsildar (S)-cum-Managing Officer Bholath wrongly allotted the land in favour of allottees which was reserved during consolidation for grazing of cattle (charand). Such type of land vests in the Gram Panchayat as has been recently held by the Honble Supreme Court of India in 2000(2)-PLJ-72. The land in question in jamabandis for the years 1962-63, 1967-78, 1972-73 has been shown as "gair mumkin charand" and the same was not available for the allotment to the displaced persons. This land (charand) falls under the definition of "shamlat deh" as defined in Section 2(g)(1) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was reserved for common purposes i.e. grazing grounds, as is covered under the definition of "common purpose" given in Section 2(bb)(iii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This land (charand) falls under the definition of "shamlat deh" as defined in Section 2(g)(1) of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It was reserved for common purposes i.e. grazing grounds, as is covered under the definition of "common purpose" given in Section 2(bb)(iii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The counsel contended that under Section 23- A(b) of East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act of 1948, the ownership of the area reserved for common benefit of the village vests in the Panchayat of that village. 9. The counsel further averred that petitioners cannot be treated as bona fide purchasers. First of all, they are inhabitant of the village, secondly, they challenged the allotment before the Collector which proves that the allotment was illegal. But to inadvertent mistake of the clerk, the stamp of the Collector has been affixed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner also enjoys powers of the Collector. 10. Sh. K.S. Dhillon, Law Officer argued that the revision petition was filed under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, before the Chief Settlement Commissioner because land was allotted by the Rehabilitation Department. The District Development and Panchayats Officer, Kapurthala used the powers of Collector under Village Common Lands Act, 1961 and finding the names of local persons in the ownership column of jamabandi 1982-83 and he rejected the claim of the Panchayat. When the allotment of a displaced person has been cancelled, State is bound to provide him an alternative piece of land. The counsel for the State averred that being the same officer, Chief Settlement Commissioner could work as a Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. 11. Sh. T.R. Vij, Advocate Counsel for the petitioner agreed that the land in question is shown as "charand" in the record and that this area falls within the definition of Section 2(g)(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 12. I have carefully considered the arguments adduced by the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record. The arguments of the petitioners both in relation to land being available for allotment and the petitioners being bona fide venders are devoid of merit. The counsel for the petitioners has admitted himself that land in question was reserved for common purpose and that this area was reserved for "charand". The arguments of the petitioners both in relation to land being available for allotment and the petitioners being bona fide venders are devoid of merit. The counsel for the petitioners has admitted himself that land in question was reserved for common purpose and that this area was reserved for "charand". A minute took at proceedings of consolidation and Khatauni Pamaish available in record reveals that during consolidation process a cut was applied on all the proprietors and area measuring 574K-3M was reserved for common purposes. The area measuring 240K- 16M was reserved for "charand". The Chief Settlement Commissioner has rightly concluded that this land has been wrongly allotted to the displaced persons. I also agree with counsel for the Panchayat that allotted area falls under the definition "shamlat deh" as given in Section 2(g)(y) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and it vests in the Gram Panchayat of village Maqsudpur. There is no evidence on the file which may show that it is an evacuee property. The allotment has, thus, been made against law. The Tehsildar (Sales) was totally unjustified in allotting this land. 13. The second main contention of petitioners is that they had purchased the land after making proper inquiries and that they are bona fide venders entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and that allotment had not been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact. Their contention is however not supported by the facts of this case. Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act is attracted if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied :- (i) The transferor must be an ostensible owner of the property transferred with the consent of the persons interested; (ii) The transfer must be for consideration; and (iii) The transfer must have acted in good faith after taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transfer or had power to transfer the same. 14. In this case, the venders have purchased the land from the attorney of L.Rs. of the allottees. They cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers. It is evident on the face of the record that they were fully aware of the fact that the land had already been utilized as "charand". 14. In this case, the venders have purchased the land from the attorney of L.Rs. of the allottees. They cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers. It is evident on the face of the record that they were fully aware of the fact that the land had already been utilized as "charand". Most of them are residents of village Maqsudpur and remaining venders are residents of village Bhados and their lands adjoin the suit land. The factum of venders being the front-men of the allottees and the allotments beings bogus allottees (allotments ?) is confirmed by the fact that the allottees did not take any interest whatsoever at any stage of the proceedings pertaining to the land in dispute. The legal heirs of the allottee, therefore, had not been recorded as owners of the land sold. It is not clear as to how the vendees came to the conclusion that the so-called attorneys could sell the land. It is also not clear as to how they ascertained the authenticity of the status of the legal heirs and their attorneys. The protection of Section 41 is available only if the vendees had taken reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had power to transfer the property. In this case what to talk of reasonable care, the vendees willfully shut their eyes and they purchased the lands. 15. To conclude, Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 enables the Chief Settlement Commissioner to examine the legality of the orders of subordinate authority in exercise of this power of revision. In the present case, it is noticed that Sh. V.K. Singh, IAS Chief Settlement Commissioner had taken great pains to record a comprehensive and well reasoned order dated 31.10.2000. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala was amply justified in passing the order cancelling the allotment made by the Tehsildar Sales in favour of Gram Panchayat. It is not possible to discern any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. As a result, I do not find any scope for interference. The petition is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed.