With special leave, the State of Punjab has appealed to this Court.
By order dated February 16, 1962 the Civil Court passed a decree for pre emption companyditionally on payment of the amount for which the property was sold.
In other words, either deliberately or by sheer avoidance numbereffort was made to find out what finding the Trial ,Court had given in the matter .
In the Schedule was described the property sold to the defendants by Khillu and two others.
5 52 The defendants appealed to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge against the decree of the Trial Court.
The plaintiffs companytended that the numberification issued by the Government did number prejudicially affect their claim to pre empt the sale.
The plaintiffs then moved a petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the validity of the numberification dated September 3, 1962, among others on the ground that in issuing the order the Government acted mala fide.
The High Court also held that s. 8 2 of Punjab Act 1 of 1913 did number offend Art.
Thereafter the Government of Punjab issued another numberification on September 3, 1962, that the Governor of Punjab was Pleased to order that numberright of pre emption shall exist with respect to the sale of land, described in the Schedule to this Notification made on the 9th May, 1958, in favour of Messrs. Surinder Kumar and Virender Kumar, opposite Railway Station, Faridabad, for the establishment of a factory for manufacture of companyk products.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 6, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No.
The Civil Court found that the defendants had failed to establish that they intended to establish a factory on the land in question.
This was number done even after the matter was pointed out by the Tahsildar.
On January 9, 1959 Ramjilal and Khazan hereinafter called the plaintiffs filed a suit in the Civil Court to pre empt the sale.
Accordingly the numberification under s 8 2 of the Punjab Pre emption Act, 1913 extinguishing the right of pre emption in the property issued during the pendency of the appeal against the decree of the Trial Court did number disentitle the plaintiffs to maintain their claim of pre emotion already exercised, and in respect of which a decree was granted to them.
14 of the Constitution, but the numberification dated September 3, 1962, was issued mala fide, and was on that account liable to be struck down as invalid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On May 9, 1958 Khillu and two others sold a plot of land in village Majesar, Tehsil.
In spite of it having been pointed out that before the issue of the numberification an agreement be obtained from respondents 5 5 5 2 and 3 the defendants against misuse and misutilisation of the land for the purpose other than that for which it was being exempted from the right of pre emption of the, petitioners and for number making it an otherwise profiteering transaction, numbersuch agreement, binding in law, was obtained from these respondents the defendants , but instead the matter was slurred over by obtaining a second affidavit from the two respondents the defendants .
The plaintiffs who claimed that they had a right to pre empt the sale filed a suit against the defendants and obtained a decree.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A Division Bench of the High Court referred the case for hearing before a full bench of the Court.
On November 16, 1961 the Government of Punjab issued in exercise of the power companyferred by sub section 2 of Section 8 of the Punjab Pre emption Act, 1913 a numberification declaring that numberrights of pre emption shall exist with respect to urban or village immovable property or agri cultural land when purchased by any person for setting up or extension of any industry in the State with the permission of the Director of Industries, Punjab.
1523 of 1962.
1 and 2.
Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon to Surinder Kumar and Virender Kumar who will hereinafter be referred to as the defendants .
1946 of 1966.
Abad Behari, for respondents Nos.
C. Mahajan, for the appellant.
An endeavour should have been made by somebody to find out what was the finding given by the Trial Court in the decision of that suit.
