NOTAM SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER JULLUNDUR DIVN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner have impugned the order dated 24/02/1981 passed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur (Respondent No. 1) under S.15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act) whereby he has refused to entertain the revision petition against the order of the Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur (Respondent No. 2) dated 22/10/1979.

(2.) In order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to a few relevant facts as unfolded in the pleadings of the parties.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 purchased land measuring 47 Kanals 3 Marlas in restricted auction held on 11/11/1966. The Tehsildar (Sales), Gurdaspur (Respondent No. 3) cancelled the restricted auction vide order dated 20/02/1969. Respondent No. 4 successfully assailed the order of Tehsildar (Sales) cancelling the auction sale before the Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 12/10/1979. During the pendency of the appeal, the writ petitioner No. 1 moved an application for being impleaded as a party to the appeal. The application was rejected on the ground that he had neither participated in the restricted auction nor challenged the same. Respondent No. 4 was allowed to deposit the balance sale price with interest within one month. Sale certificate No. 312/ R/G 268 was issued by the Tehsildar (Sales) in favour of respondent No. 4. Proprietary rights were conferred on him on 12/10/1982. Petitioner No. 1 and his son aggrieved against the order of the Sales Commissioner dated 12/10/1979 whereby former's application for being impleaded as a party to the appeal titled as "Ram Lal v. Punjab State" was rejected, preferred revision petition under S.15 of the Act before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision petition holding that the petitioners ought to have approached the Chief Sales Commissioner and not the Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur. He was of the opinion that the residual powers of the Commissioner of the Division under S.15 of the Act can be invoked where the aggrieved party has no other remedy under the law. On merits, he held that the Sales Commissioner was right in rejecting the application of the petitioner No. 1 for being impleaded as a party to the appeal, as he had neither participated in the restricted auction nor had he appealed against the auction purchase by respondent No. 4. The Sales Commissioner allowed respondent No. 4 to deposit the balance sale price with interest within one month. Respondent No. 1 did not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Sales Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. It is the validity of this order which has been challenged in this writ petition.