PURAN Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.1991 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, on a petition filed by the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 Under Sec. 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, the petitioner has filed this petition and has prayed for quashing of the impugned order.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he purchased land measuring 58 -kanals 2 -marlas in village Hothian, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, on 30.9.1975 in a restricted auction held by Tehsildar (Sales), Kapurthala. The sale was confirmed by the competent authority on 14.11.1975 and the petitioner got possession of the property. After about five years, the respondents 4 and 5 filed a petition Under Sec. 10 of the 1976 Act before the Chief Sales Commissioner for cancellation of the sale made in favour of the petitioner. This petition was dismissed by the Chief Sales Commissioner on 25.6.1981. Appeal filed by the respondents 4 and 5 against the order dated 25.6.1981 was accepted by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who remanded the case to the Chief Sales Commissioner for fresh decision. Once again the Chief Sales Commissioner passed order dated 9.11.1982 and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the order dated 9.11.1982 was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dated 14.10.1985. However, the revision petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been accepted by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) who held that the land in dispute did not belong to the Rehabilitation Department and it was the property of Gram Panchayat being Shamilat Taraf Jattan and on that premise the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the orders passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

(3.) The petitioner has pleaded that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to set aside the sale made in his favour in the year 1975 because the same has never been challenged by any body before the competent authority. The petitioner's further contention is that the sale was effected after following the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1976 and as the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 did not raise any objection to the restricted auction of the property, they are estopped from questioning the legality of the sale. Another contention of the petitioner is that the land in dispute was not being used for the benefit of the village community and it was not a part of Shamilat Deh and, therefore, the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has committed a serious illegality in holding that the property belongs to the Gram Panchayat. Yet another contention of the petitioner is that any dispute relating to the auction held by the Rehabilitation Department could be decided by the said Department and by none else.