that the plaintiffs-respondents are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land without notice as the revenue record placed on record does not in any way contain any entry that Jita, auction purchaser of the suit land, could not dispose of the same within ten years of the purchase of the land by him in auction as has been mentioned in Intkalnama' Exhibit D.2. It has been further observed by both the Courts below that no doubt in the document Exhibit D.2 condition has been incorporated that Jita would not be entitled to dispose of the land for a period of ten years to a non-Harijan, but this condition does not find mention in the revenue record consisting of Jamabandies Exhibits P.A, P.B and P.C. It may be mentioned here that Jita Ram had earlier sold a part of the suit land to one Gurparshad, who had later on sold the same to the plaintiffs-respondents and rest of the suit land had been directly sold by Jita to the plaintiffs-respondents vide different sale deeds. Both the Courts held the plaintiffsrespondents to be owners in possession of the suit land being bona fide purchasers without notice for consideration. Before the Courts below, it was admitted case of the parties that Jita Ram had sold the land allotted to him vide Intkalnama' (Exhibit D.2) within ten years of the said allotment to him; meaning thereby the land in dispute had not ceased to be covered under the provisions of the Act. As such, the sale of the suit land had been made by Jita in contravention of the provisions of `Intkalnama'/Sale Certificiate (Exhibit D.2). It is also worth noticing
