SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER, JULLUNDUR DIVISION, JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arjan Singh Lambardar of Patti Bhagu Singh in village Ghalib Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, had filed a writ petition in this Court, challenging the auction of his land measuring 6-1/2 acres for realising a sum of Rs. 14804.69 as arrears of Governments dues inasmuch as he had not deposited the land revenue allegedly collected by him. The land was put to auction on 26th June, 1970. Surjit Singh and Dalip Singh, respondent, offered the highest bid. The writ petitioner Arjan Singh had filed objections against the auction alleging that the highest bid offered was extremely low and further that proclamation had not been made in accordance with the Rules. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division vide order dated 4th March, 1971, dismissed the objections.

(2.) Before the learned single Judge, the petitioner had argued that he was not a defaulter in term of section 3(8) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) and as such his land was wrongly put to auction. It may be noticed here that prior to the amendment of section 3(8) of the Act, in the year 1974, the definition of 'defaulter' was as under :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amended definition of "defaulter" could not be applied in the case of the appellant's father inasmuch as when the alleged default was committed, he did not fall with in the definition on "defaulter", and no retrospective effect can be given to the definition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, has submitted that in fact by virtue of the earlier agreements to sell dated 3rd October, 1961 and 16th September, 1961, they have already purchased the land from the appellant's father and had paid him the money and had also got the land redeemed from the mortgagees by paying them the mortgage amount, and, accordingly, got into possession since then. According to the learned counsel, since the land was being put to auction, respondents had to purchase it to save their possession by paying again to the Government. He also pointed out that the learned Commissioner had also allowed a chance to the appellant's father to deposit the money but he failed to do so. It will be relevant to reproduce para 2 of the written statement filed by respondents No. 3 and 4, which is as under :-