MALKIAT SINGH Vs. SHRI S.R. BUNGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a Harijan and is serving in Army as a soldier. He alleged that he has been in possession of 40 Kanals 3 Marlas of the property in dispute which is now package deal property since 1956 -57. In support of his claim of possession, he has brought Annexure P -1, Khasra Girdawri, for the period from 1966 -67 to 197.73 as also Jamabandi, Annexure P -2 for the year 1970 -71. His case is that, under press note of 1971, annexure P -1, as he is in possession since Rabi, 1971(sic), he is entitled to transfer of all the land in his possession as a landless Harijan Under the Press note he applied for transfer, which application was rejected by order dated 4th of July, 1972, Annexure P -4, on the ground that under he Government Press note, he was not entitled to transfer as he was in Government service. Order, Annexure P -4 was challenged in appeal. While the appeal was pending the property in dispute was put to auction and was purchased by Respondents 4 and 5 on 7th of April, 1973. Against the auction objections were filed on behalf of the Petitioner which were rejected by order Annexure P -5 dated 17th of May, 1974, as it was not found that there was any irregularity in the conduct of the auction A revision was taken before the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, against order Annexure P -5 which was rejected by order, Annexure P -6 dated 13th of February, 1973. The appeal/revision of the Petitioner against order of refusal to transfer was also dismissed by the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation by order dated 14th February, 1975. Annexure P -7 on the ground that the Petitioner was a member of the Armed Forces and as such was a Government servant and was not entitled to transfer under the Press note. Thereafter, the Petitioner has come to this Court in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the aforesaid orders.

(2.) THE State of Punjab has not filed any written statement, but private Respondents 4 and 5 have filed written statement and have opposed the writ petition

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid provision of the press note thus suggests that a Government servant cannot take part in the auctions to be held except the persons named therein. But a reading of the entire press note would show that it is divided in three categories. The first category is as follows: