BACHAN SINGH Vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ No. 1517 of 1972 and Civil Writ No. 3874 of 1972. The facts, in brief, of Civil Writ No. 1517 of 1972 are that Bachan Singh and his brothers who are the petitioners before me were the auction-purchasers of land measuring 15 Kanals 12 Marlas comprising in Khasra Nos. 117, 169, 205 and 206 in village Paman, District Kapurthala, which was sold by public auction on 13.6.1963, under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioners being the highest bidders paid the one-fourth of the auction money at the spot and the remaining 3/4 was to be paid within 15 days of the auction and the same was actually paid by them on 20th June, 1963. It is alleged by the petitioners that subsequently they were put in possession of the land and they remained in possession till the year 1971 when respondent No. 5, Devi Chand, had taken possession of a portion of the land. Then the petitioners made an application to the then Revenue Minister, who stayed their dispossession from the remaining land. It is alleged in this petition that the Kanungo and the Tehsildar visited the spot recently for the delivery of the possession, without any orders being passed by any competent authority of their eviction. The petitioners approached the authorities for getting the copy of the order, in consequence of which they were being dispossessed, but they were informed that the copy of such an order cannot be supplied to them. On these averments a prayer has been made that a suitable writ, direction or order be issued stopping the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners form the land which they had purchased in a public auction in the year 1963.

(2.) The State Government filed written statement in response to this petition in which it was pleaded that an order was passed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division on 15th July, 1964, by which he refused to approve the bid of the petitioners in public auction and, therefore, the auction in favour of the petitioners having not been approved by the Commissioner, they were not entitled to continue in possession. On this plea being taken, the petitioners then filed Civil Writ No. 3874 of 1972, challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 15.7.1964, copy of which has been attached as Annexure 'A' with C.W. No. 3874 of 1972. This order of the Commissioner is a mere communication from the Commissioner to the Collector, Kapurthala and it was alleged by the petitioners that except this order no other order has been passed and no copy has been supplied to them. It is admitted by Mr. Bedi, the learned counsel for the State, that except the order, copy of which is Annexure 'A' there is no other order passed by the Commissioner on the file disapproving the sale in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) The impugned order Annexure 'A' in C.W. No. 3874 of 1972 has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners being the highest bidders at the public auction, which was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Sections 79 to 92 of the Act, and they having complied with the provisions of Section 85 of the Act by depositing the one-fourth bid amount at the spot, and also having complied with Section 88 of the Act by depositing the balance amount of the bid were put into possession and having not been given any notice of the subsequent proceedings no order adverse to their interest could be passed by the authorities without affording them an opportunity of being heard. It is contended that the petitioners acquired a substantial interest in the property and if at all the auction had been not to be approved by the Commissioner they ought to have been heard before the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner.