JOG RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing orders dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab (respondent No. 1); dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P-9) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar (respondent No. 2) and order dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr (respondent No. 3) whereby order dated 30.09.2003 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sales Commissioner, Balachaur (respondent No. 4) confirming the auction sale dated 28.12.1996 in favour of the petitioner was set aside.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY , as per the case of the petitioner, evacuee land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla situated in Village Makkowal, Tehsil Balachaur, was auctioned by Tehsildar, Balachaur, on 28.12.1996 under Rule 6 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1976), after adopting due process/procedure enumerated under the said Act and Rules. The petitioner made highest bid of Rs. 40,200.00, which was accepted by the Tehsildar (sales) and the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000.00 as earnest money on the spot and executed a Qabuliyatnama on 28.12.1996. Against the said auction, one Sumitra Devi filed objections on 20.08.1997 alleging that she is in actual possession and proper procedure has not been adopted as no proclamation was made in the village. The Sales Commissioner, Balachaur, vide order dated 28.01.1999 set aside the auction sale. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner - cum - Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr, which was accepted vide order dated 10.06.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the Sales Commissioner, Balachaur, for passing fresh order keeping in view the instructions of the State Government and the provisions of the Act. However, after remand, Sumitra Devi withdrew her objections before the Sub Divisional Magistratecum-Sales Commissioner, Balachaur, and on the basis of her statement, Sales Commissioner, confirmed the auction dated 28.12.1996 in favour of the petitioner - Jog Raj Singh vide order dated 30.09.2003. Although, Ravinder Singh (Respondent No. 5 herein), who was neither bidder nor in possession, filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr, challenging the order of the Sales Commissioner on the ground that the land in dispute was meanwhile allotted to Chanan Singh (Respondent No. 6) on 19.12.2001 and he is vendee from Chanan Singh vide sale deed dated 26/27.06.2002 and his name appears in the jamabandi. Believing these assertions, the Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr, vide order dated 24.03.2005 accepted the appeal of Ravinder Singh and set aside order dated 30.09.2003 of Sales Commissioner, Balachaur. The Chief Sales Commissioner, has observed that the land in dispute had been allotted to Chanan Singh who further sold the same to Ravinder Singh and mutation has been sanctioned in his favour. Aggrieved against the said order, petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which too was dismissed on 29.08.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, but his revision petition was also dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2008 and this has necessitated the filing of the present writ petition.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , property in question was put to auction under Rule 6 of the Rules 1976 on 28.12.1996; petitioner was highest bidder of Rs. 40,200.00; petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000.00 as earnest money on the spot and has executed a Qabuliyatnama on 28.12.1996; initially Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Tarsem Lal on 20.08.1997 challenged the auction sale by way of filing objections contending she was in possession and no intimation regarding the auction was ever given to her. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Sales Commissioner vide order dated 12.02.1999 pleased to reject the objections filed by Sumitra Devi on the ground that objections challenging the auction sale should have been filed within 10 days of the auction as per rule 6-B of the Rules, 1976, which in fact were filed after limitation; objections do not contain khasra number of the properties wherein Sumitra Devi claims her possession; however, the auction was not confirmed on the ground that no advertisement was made in the newspaper and proclamation was not proper. Feeling aggrieved, auction purchaser-petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Nawanshahr. Appeal filed by the auction purchaser - petitioner herein was allowed vide order dated 10.06.1999 and matter was remanded to the Sales Commissioner. After remand, property was allotted in favour of respondent No. 6 on 19.12.2001. It is important to mention here that respondent No. 6 neither have raised any objection against the auction sale dated 28.12.1996 nor ever claimed his possession over the property in dispute on the date of auction dated 28.12.1996, even then allotment was made in favour of respondent No. 6 after the remand during the pendency of the proceedings regarding confirmation of the auction sale.