TARSEM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute is regarding 2 kanals of land. It belongs to the Central Government. A proclamation regarding auction was made in the village on May 7, 1990. The land was actually auctioned on May 25, 1990. Respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder. His offer was accepted. The petitioner filed objections. He claimed that he was in occupation of the land and that it be allotted to him. The matter was considered by the Sales Commissioner. Vide order dated October 17, 1990, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3, the objections were rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner. It was dismissed vide order dated May 9, 1991. A copy of the order is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. It was held that the objections had not been filed within the prescribed time. The auction was held to be valid. Thus, the appeal was rejected. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner. Vide order dated September 28, 1994, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-6, the Commissioner held that the Chief Sales Commissioner should have examined the point of possession on the basis of the land record. Since the authorities had failed to do so, he remanded the case to the Chief Sales Commissioner. The third respondent who was the auction purchaser filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. This revision petition was accepted vide order dated August 24, 1998. Hence this petition. The petitioner prays that the orders, copies of which have been produced on record as Annexures P-3, P-5 and P-7, be quashed.

(2.) MR . Jasbir Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the land had been actually allotted to Sunder Singh. Thus, it could not have been auctioned. Secondly, it has been submitted that the land was in possession of the petitioner and he had applied for allotment. Thus, it should have been allotted to him and not put to auction. Thirdly, it has been submitted that the auction of the land was not fair. Thus, the impugned orders should be quashed. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. G.S. Nagra, who has appeared on behalf of the auction purchaser, the third respondent.

(3.) MR . Jasbir Singh contends that the petitioner was in possession of the land. It should have been allotted to him. This claim is based on certain executive instructions which entitled the occupant to apply for allotment. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, the Financial Commissioner has categorically found that the petitioner had not applied or ever made any representation for that purpose. The petitioner having failed to apply in accordance with the alleged press note, the authorities have rightly rejected his claim on that ground.