MUKAND SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. NIRMAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:-

(2.) The suit was filed by the plaintiff contending that she was an allottee of the property under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act of 1976 on 11.03.1977 and that the claim by the defendant by virtue of the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner was not binding on her since she had not been made a party to the proceedings. The suit was resisted by the defendant, who is the appellant before this Court on a plea that the property had been originally sold in an auction held on 07.01.1964 and later confirmed on 14.02.1964 in describing the properties with reference to khasra number and rectangular numbers. While the khasra numbers had been correctly set out, rectangular number was shown as 476 when the correct number was 536. Sale certificate had also been issued in April 1964 and when the defendant applied for correction on 10.09.1969 for incorporating the correct rectangular number as 536 instead of 476, the Settlement Officer by his order dated 30.04.1970 dismissed the prayer for correction and also directed a re-auction to be made.

(3.) The defendant participated in the re-auction and was again declared the highest bidder on 03.02.1976. The sale, however, was not confirmed and the Settlement Officer again passed an order on 21.06.1976 directing that the sale would not be confirmed for alleged irregularities. This order was challenged before the Chief Sales Commissioner, who passed an order on 28.04.1980 under Section 10 of the 1976 Act reversing the decision of the Settlement Officer and upholding the sale in favour of the defendant.