MILKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evacuee house No. 80, situate at village Bajuha Kalan, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jullundur, is in occupation of the petitioner. Its reverse price is Rs. 35,000/- . It was put to auction on Sept. 3, 1964, and again on Oct. 7, 1964, but nobody offered any bid. This house was put to auction for the third time on Feb. 23, 1968, and the highest bid offered was that of the petitioner for Rs. 8,000/- . The highest bid offered by the petitioner being inadequate was not approved. The house was put to auction for the fourth time on Nov. 27, 1972, and the highest bid again was that of the petitioner for Rs. 12,000/- . Since the highest bid offered by the petitioner was less than the reserve price it was referred to the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner for approval. The Settlement Commissioner inspected the house. Before the Settlement Commissioner could approve the highest bid of the petitioner, Gurdev Singh respondent submitted an application that he was prepared to pay Rs. 20,000/- for the said house and in support of his offer he deposited Rs. 14,400/- as challenge money. The Settlement Commissioner heard the petitioner and Gurdev Singh respondent and by order dated Nov. 1, 1973, (P. 1) approved the highest bid of the petitioner. Gurdev Singh feeling aggrieved by the order P. 1 filed a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (hereinafter the Act). The Financial Commissioner (Taxation), who exercised the powers under Section 33 of the Act treated the application under Rule 15 of the Package Deal Rules and by order dated July 29,. 1975, (P. 3) set aside the order P. 1 and further directed that the house be put to auction with the first bid of Gurdev Singh respondent for Rs. 20,000/- . The petitioner has assailed the order P. 3 in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner (P.1) was final under the Package Deal Rules (hereafter the Rules) and could not be assailed under Section 33 of the Act. The argument proceeds that the Financial Commissioner Taxation wrongly treated the petition filed by Gurdev Singh under S. 33 of the Act as one under R. 15 of the Rules. The Secretary of Government, Punjab, Rehabilitation Department, can be best give n award under R. 15 of the Rules and has no jurisdiction to pass an order like P. 3. The order P.3 is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. It is not disputed that the highest bid of Rs. 12,000/- offered by the petitioner was subject to approval by the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose. The relevant part of Rule 5 which deals with the procedure for the sale of Punjab Deal properties by public auction reads :--

(3.) Rule 9 of the Rules deals with complaints. The relevant part of this rule reads :--