CWP-18997-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No. 138 CWP-18997-2026 Decided on:01.07.2026 Umesh Sharma . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. S. P. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents no.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s claim and transfer registration of vehicle/Wagon R car bearing no. HR73B5362, owned by late Hari Ram, in favour of the former. 2. Learned counsel contended that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of late Hari Ram and a registration certificate to that effect dated 04.03.2025, Annexure P-1, was issued by RTA Palwal, though the payment to purchase the same had been made by the petitioner. Accordingly, the documents for transfer of ownership of the vehicle, Forms 29 and 30, Annexure P-4, given to the petitioner by Hari Ram along with an affidavit dated 03.03.2025, Annexure P-5, were submitted to the registering authority, but no action has been taken. He also submits that the said Hari Ram is no more, as he passed away on 23.08.2025. MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.08 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18997-2026 -2- 3. Learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that no application for transfer of ownership of the said vehicle has been received by the Registering Authority, Palwal. He also points out the affidavit attached to Forms 29 and 30, statedly signed by Hari Ram, has been attested on 03.03.2025. No transfer can be effected on the basis of such documents since the supporting affidavit has been signed and attested on 03.03.2025, whereas the vehicle was registered in his name subsequent thereto on 04.03.2025. He further contended that the claim by the petitioner that he had made payment for the vehicle, which was registered in the name of Hari Ram, would attract the provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1988 Act’), which bars any person from entering into benami transactions and makes such a person liable to punishment with imprisonment for a term upto three years under Section 3. And Section 4 prohibits any person from filing any suit or raising any claim or action to enforce any right in respect of benami property against the person in whose name the property has been held. 4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 5. The facts aforementioned are not in dispute, therefore there is no escape from concluding that the petitioner is not entitled to seek transfer of the vehicle in his name on the basis of above referred Forms 29 and 30, supported by affidavit of Hari Ram dated 03.03.2025, since the same has been signed and attested prior to issuance of the registration certificate itself. This prima facie establishes it to be a sham document which cannot be acted upon, unless proved otherwise. Further, in case the petitioner’s claim that the vehicle has MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.08 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18997-2026 -3- been purchased with the money given by him comes true, it would prima facie attract provisions of the 1988 Act. This is another reason that such a transfer of vehicle cannot be permitted. 6. In view thereof, the petition is not maintainable and stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 01.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.08 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment