JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J. 1. In this writ petition the Petitioners have assailed order dated 21-12-1991 (Annexure PQ) of Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of Central Government under Section 33 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called 'the Act') whereby their revision petition was dismissed and the order dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure PO) passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Relief and Rehabilitation) Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla was confirmed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had allowed the appeal under Section 23 of the Act filed by Respondents 7 to 12 and quashed the order dated 21-3-1988 of Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Himachal Pradesh vide which he had rejected the objections of Respondents 7 to 11 and the sale of the property in dispute conducted by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) on 27-2-1988 was upheld and confirmed. The Chief Settlement Commission had further ordered that the amount of sale deposited by the Petitioners/auction purchasers shall be refunded to them and the sale of the property in dispute shall be conducted afresh after publishing in atleast two daily Newspapers-one English and one Hindi wherein the exact area and des cription of the property shall be given. He had further directed that the property in dispute shall be got valuated afresh and reserve price will be fixed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Shimla within a period of four months. 2. The facts in brief are that there is a building known as 'Exchange Building' situated on The Mall, Shimla, which was a Muslim evacuee pro perty. It consists of several shops and flats for business and residential purposes. One half of this building belonged to one Khan Bahadur Inayatullah, who migrated to Pakistan, which is the property in dispute. The other half of the building is Muslim Wakf property and belongs to the Kashmiri Mosque administered by the trustees of the Muslim Trust Properties which has now been substituted by the Punjab Wakf Board. 3. In order to sell the property in dispute, public auction was held on 12-6-1959 and one O.P. Kapoor, a Partner of the Krishna Furnishing Company, an allottee of one of the shops in the building, was declared the highest bidder of Rs. 45,100 hut it was not accepted by the competent authority. 3. In order to sell the property in dispute, public auction was held on 12-6-1959 and one O.P. Kapoor, a Partner of the Krishna Furnishing Company, an allottee of one of the shops in the building, was declared the highest bidder of Rs. 45,100 hut it was not accepted by the competent authority. In Civil Writ Petition No. 34 of 1967 said O.P. Kapoor challenged the decision of the competent authority hut failed arid the transfer made in his favour was quashed and it was directed that fresh auction would be held of the property in dispute in accordance with law by judgment dated 9-12-1976 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court. The Civil Writ Petition No. 337 of 1987 filed by the Punjab Wakf Board was also dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 1-9-1987 rejecting their prayer that the building may be partitioned by metes and hounds before one half evacuee's share in it i.e. property in dispute is put to fresh auction as per the judgment dated 9-12-1 976 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 34 of 1967. 4. Thereafter it was on 2-2-1988 that an auction notice (Annexure PD) for the sale of the property in dispute was published in Hindi News paper 'Punjab Kesari' on behalf of Naib-Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Shimla. As per-this notice, auction was fixed on 27-2-1988 at 11.00 am. on the spot. The highest bidder was to deposit 1/4th of the bid money on the spot after the close of the bid. Other conditions of auction were to be announced on the spot. The spot was fixed in front of Sher-e-Punjab, The Mall, Shimla where the persons interested in participating in the auction were to remain present. 5. According to the Petitioner, the reserve price of the property in dispute was fixed at less than Rs. 2 lacs. Pursuant to the auction notice, Respondent No. 5, the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales) took up auction proceedings on 27-2-1988 on the spot. He recorded the presence of intending bidders who were present on the spot before commencing the proceedings. The presence sheet (Annexure PE) placed on record by the Petitioners shows that Respondents 6 to 12, except Respondent No. 9 Sardar Rawel Singh, were present. They had also participated in the bid as their names appeared in the bid sheets (Annexure PF). He recorded the presence of intending bidders who were present on the spot before commencing the proceedings. The presence sheet (Annexure PE) placed on record by the Petitioners shows that Respondents 6 to 12, except Respondent No. 9 Sardar Rawel Singh, were present. They had also participated in the bid as their names appeared in the bid sheets (Annexure PF). According to the Petitioners, finally their bid in the sum of Rs. 7,(sic),000 was accepted by Respondent No. 5 with the fall of the hammer, and they had deposited 25% of the bid money. Lateron the remaining amount was also deposited by them on 29-3-1988. 6. Respondents 6 to 11 felt aggrieved by the auction conducted by Respondent No. 5 and filed application/objections on 5-3-1988 (Annexure PH) under Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') for setting aside the sale, which were contested by the Petitioners by filing reply (Annexure PJ). Ultimately, the application/objections of Respondents 6 to 11 were dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his judgment dated 21-3-1988 (Annexure PK) and sale conducted by Respondent No. 5 on 27-2-1988 was confirmed and Sale Certificate (Annexure PG) was issued in favour of the Petitioners. Thereafter, Respondents 7 to 11 had also preferred application (Annexure PL) under Rule 11D(12) of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951 for setting aside the sale before the competent authority, to which reply (Annexure PM) was also filed by the Petitioners. It seems that this application/objections were not pursued, as in the meantime, order dated 21-3-1988 was passed and Respondents 7 to (SIC) filed appeal (Annexure PN) under Section 23 of the Act against it before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was allowed by judgment dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure PO). The Chief Settlement Commissioner has noticed that the property in dispute is a massive property situated in the heart of Shimla Town. It contained the following: (i) 16 shops; (ii) A hotel containing about 10 rooms; (iii) 8 Residential flats on the 2nd floor; (iv) Seven one room flats on the ground floor; (v) Three other flats; (vi) 4 Other independent rooms/quarters being put to various other uses. 7. It contained the following: (i) 16 shops; (ii) A hotel containing about 10 rooms; (iii) 8 Residential flats on the 2nd floor; (iv) Seven one room flats on the ground floor; (v) Three other flats; (vi) 4 Other independent rooms/quarters being put to various other uses. 7. The irregularities noticed in the sale by the Chief Settlement Com missioner are that the upset price was not fixed by getting the property in dispute evaluated according to the market rates and in the notice for auction detailed description of the property in respect of its built up area and number of commercial and residential establishments contained in it was not done He has further found that despite grave charges against Respondent No. 5, who conducted the sale that he was in league with the auction purchaser and he was whisked away by him and his supporters after the auction to his hotel, no inquiry was conducted by giving opportunity to the applicants/objectors to substantiate their allegations. According to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Respondent No. 5 who conduct the sale, was to retire two days after the sale conducted by him i.e. on 29-2-1988, which casts cloud over the whole proceedings which seem to have been conducted in a post-haste. It is also observed that the property in dispute is a priced one but it has fetched miserably low price in the auction, as a result of which the Government has suffered great financial loss as well as erosion of its credibility. The judgment of the Chief Settlement Commissioner has been confirmed by the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Central Government by his judgment dated 21-12-1991 (Annexure PQ) passed in the revision petition filed by the Petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed their reply to the writ petition on the affidavit of Shri Rajmani Tripathi, Additional Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. They have admitted Paras 1 to 20 of the writ petition, except the allegations made in Paras 1, 4 and 19. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Respondents 1 to 5 have filed their reply to the writ petition on the affidavit of Shri Rajmani Tripathi, Additional Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. They have admitted Paras 1 to 20 of the writ petition, except the allegations made in Paras 1, 4 and 19. According to them, the Petitioners have no right and locus standi to maintain this writ petition, They have further stated that in order to implement the High Court judgment dated 9-12-1976, the Government had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Shim1 to take necessary action, who had asked Respondent No. 6 through its Secretary to amicably settle the joint property so that the evacuee share could he put to auction but it filed C.W.P. No 337 of 1987, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 1-9-1987 and directions were issued to the competent authority to implement judgment dated 9-12-1976 in letter and spirit. In reply to Para 10 it is submitted that as the previous reserve price assessed in the year 1955 was very low, fresh reserve price was required to be assessed by the competent authority on the basis of existing market value before putting the property in dispute to auction Contents of Paragraph 21 and its various sub-paragraphs have also been denied and the impugned orders are supported. It is specifically stated that the Petitioners have not suffered any injury as a result of the impugned orders. 9. In their separate reply filed on the affidavit of Respondent No. 9 Sardar Rawel Singh, Respondents 7 to 11 have denied that instructions, Annexure PC to the writ petition have any sanctity of law and statutory force. According to them, these were not applicable for the sale of evacuee property in Himachal Pradesh. The Naib-Tehsildar (Sales) was not an auctioner appointed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was not competent to issue a proclamation of intended sale and conduct the sale it is averred that for the sale fixed on 27-2-1988 wide publicity required under the Rules was not made. There was no beat of drums and proclamation was not affixed to the property in dispute. Only auction notice was published in one newspaper. This prevented number of buyers to come forward to bid at the time of sale. There was no beat of drums and proclamation was not affixed to the property in dispute. Only auction notice was published in one newspaper. This prevented number of buyers to come forward to bid at the time of sale. The description of the property in dispute, which was offered for sale was also not mentioned. The reserve price was also not fixed by the competent authority on the basis of prevailing market value at the time of proposed sale. It is specifically denied that the auction was conducted between 11.30 am. to 5.30 p.m. According to them the auction commenced at 12.20 p.m. was continued upto 1.00 p.m. and thereafter it was stopped and again commenced at 3.30 p.m. and continued upto 5.15 p.m, though as per the notice it was to be held upto 4.00 p.m. Naib-Tehsildar Shri Kirpa Ram, who was conducting the auction was whisked away by the persons representing Petitioner No. 1 to Hotel Samrat belonging to Petitioner No. 1, as a result of which the auction was abruptly closed and at that time the Petitioners' bid for a sum of Rs. 7,11,000 was the highest. Respondent No. 7 made a request to continue with the bid further but Naib-Tehsildar Shri Kirpa Ram did not agree. There was lot of resentment on the spot and the matter was brought to the notice of High authorities by filing objection and sending telegrams; These Respondents have levelled allegations that Naib-Tehsildar Shri Kirpa Ram, the Sale Officer was in league with Petitioner No. 1. All this resulted into material irregularity, substantial injury and great financial loss to the excheque. The contents of Para 21 and its various sub-paras are also denied. It is stressed that had there been proper publication and proper sale conducted at the spot the amount realised by the auction could have been much more than offered by the Petitioners. It is also alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the ease the Petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief sought for by them in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. Respondent No. 12 has also filed a separate reply taking almost the similar stand as that of Respondents 7 to 11. It is asserted that the value of the property in dispute is Rs. 40 lacs, whereas, it was auctioned at a throw away puce. 10. Respondent No. 12 has also filed a separate reply taking almost the similar stand as that of Respondents 7 to 11. It is asserted that the value of the property in dispute is Rs. 40 lacs, whereas, it was auctioned at a throw away puce. This Respondent had raised objection against the sale and had offered an amount of Rs. 12.5 lacs it is also averred that the sale was held in a post haste manner, as Naib-Tehsildar Shri Kirpa Raw was to retire after two days. On the day of auction the Petitioners had brought hired men who obstructed the proceedings of the auction which was held in complete violation of the procedure laid down in law. This Respondent had filed objections on 9-3-1988 (Annexure R-12/1) before the Settlement Commissioner and lateron on 21-5-1988 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. He has reiterated his offer of Rs. 12.5 lacs for the property in dispute. Supporting the impugned orders he has submitted that substantial justice had been done to the parties and this Court may not interfere in this writ petition. 11. Rejoinder to the reply(s) has also been filed by the Petitioners reiterating the allegations made in the writ petition and denying the con trary stated in the reply(s). 12. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners by their learned Counsel Shri A.K. Goel are that Respondents 6 to 12 are estopped to object to the sale of the property in dispute on account of alleged misdescription or non-description of the property in dispute, as they had participated in the auction and being in occupation of different portions of the building, they were fully knowing the property in dispute and could not be misled in any manner, as such, no prejudice was caused to them. To substantiate his submission Shri Goel has relied upon the judgments in Rajinder Singh v. Chakravarti Malhotra and Ors. AIR 1981 Delhi 48 and Ram Krishna Kapoor and Anr. v. Purshottam Dass Poddar and Anr. AIR 1981 All 21. 13. We find substance in this submission. To substantiate his submission Shri Goel has relied upon the judgments in Rajinder Singh v. Chakravarti Malhotra and Ors. AIR 1981 Delhi 48 and Ram Krishna Kapoor and Anr. v. Purshottam Dass Poddar and Anr. AIR 1981 All 21. 13. We find substance in this submission. Assuming there was misdescription or non-description of the property in dispute in the auction notice, as alleged by Respondents 7 to 12, such an irregularity has not caused any injury to them because being in occupation of different portions of the building, they were fully knowing the property in dispute and could not be misled, In fact, except Respondent No. 9, all of them had participated in the auction. It is held in Rajinder Singh's case (supra), "The misdescription of the property, if shown to have misled any of the intending bidders, can be regarded as an irregularity in holding the sale causing a substantial injury to the intending bidder if he could not locate the property due to the misdescription", but the intending bidder must show that he was willing and able to bid for which opportunity was denied to him Similarly, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ram Krishan Kapoor (supra), is that it is to be seen on the facts of each ease that the alleged irregularity in publishing the sale proclamation is such as to cause substantial injury to the intended bidder. (Also see: Ratan Lal v. Bank of Bihar, Ltd. AIR 1934 Pat 186 and Narwair Sing v. Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab and Ors. 1981 PLJ 81). 14. Another point raised by Shri Goel is that from the facts and circumstances on record, Respondents 7 to 12 were not able to show that they had suffered substantial injury by reason of irregularity or fraud committed in the conduct of auction of the property in dispute. Shri Goel has referred to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of the Rules to show that twin requirements for setting aside the sale are that there should be material irregularity or fraud in the publication or conduct of the sale and these should have also caused substantial injury to the person who objects to the sale and prays for setting it aside. According to Shri God, the authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgments. 15. According to Shri God, the authorities have not applied their mind to this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned judgments. 15. Shri Goel has also submitted that inadequacy of price fetched in the auction and higher offer made by the objector after the auction was over, are no grounds for setting aside the sale, which were the main considerations which weighed with the authorities passing the impugned orders According to him, like sale under the orders of the Court, the sale of the evacuee prop is a distressed sale, as such, it does not fetch the market value of the property sold. In support of his submissions Shri Goel has relied upon the judgments in Smt. Laikunnissah v. Han Prasad and Ors. AIR 1980 All 63 and Union of India and Ors. v. Sh. Rallia Ram and Ors. PLR 1981 Delhi 42 and V.V. Narayan Chetty v. NenlaDhanamma and Anr. AIR 1984 AP 159. 16. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have pointed out that publication of the auction notice was not in accordance with law and the auction was fixed in February, which is a cold and lean month in Shimla, as a result of which not many prospective buyers could come and participate in the auction. Their another objection is that the reserve price was not fixed on the basis of market value at the time of sale of the property in dispute before putting it to auction Their main objection is with regard to conduct of the auction by Shri Kirpa Ram, the Sale Officer. Serious allegations of his misconduct had been made, which were not inquired into by the Settlement Officer, who had decided their objections under Rule 92 of the Rules, despite an application dated 9-3-1988 filed on their behalf to provide them an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their allegations. These allegations are that auction had commenced at 12.20 p.m.and continued upto 1.00 p.m. and thereafter it commenced at 3.30 p.m. and continued upto 5.50 p.m. against the time stated in the auction notice. In the forenoon some representatives and supporters of the Petitioners disturbed the proceedings and in the afternoon when the Petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 7,11,000 they abruptly whisked away the Naib-Tehsildar, the Sale Officer, to a hotel belonging to Petitioner No. 1. In the forenoon some representatives and supporters of the Petitioners disturbed the proceedings and in the afternoon when the Petitioner gave the highest bid of Rs. 7,11,000 they abruptly whisked away the Naib-Tehsildar, the Sale Officer, to a hotel belonging to Petitioner No. 1. Had the auction proceedings continued, some of the Respondents would have raised their bid and the property in dispute would have fetched much more price. Though some of them h participated in the auction, yet as the auction was not being conducted in a fair and just manner and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law, they have a right to challenge the sale under Rule 92 of the Rules. 17. It is pointed out that they had raised objections during the course of the proceedings of auction and one of them i.e. Respondent No. 6, had also given his objections in writing. After the close of the auction some of the Respondents had sent telegrams to the authorities before filing their objections under Rule 92 of the Rules within the period of limitation. In nutshell, their submission is that by not conducting the auction in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules and as a result of misconduct of Naib-Tehsildar Kirpa Ram, the Sates Officer, the auction was not conducted in fair, just and independent manner, as such, these Respondents could not participate in the auction and make their bid freely, and the property in dispute could not fetch adequate price. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing on their behalf that the sale of evacuee property is not a distressed sale, as submitted by Shri Goel, learned Counsel f the Petitioners, therefore, if auction would have been held after due publicity and in fair and just manner, the property in dispute would have fetched much more price as it is a priced property situated on The Mall in the heart of the town. 18. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents have also pointed out that the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of Central Government could otherwise set aside the sale under Sections 24 and 33 respectively if they were not satisfied with the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner confirming the sale was legal or proper. They have also referred to one judgment of Karnataka High court in M/s Annapurna Industries and Anr. v. Syndicate Bank and Ors. AIR 1993 Kant 279, to point out that if material irregularity is committed in the publication and conduct of the auction which results in not securing the best price, more so, of an evacuee property causing a loss to the exchequer, substantial injury is apparent. 19. We have given our best consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties. Before we deal with them, we may refer to the relevant provisions of law. Under Section 20 of the Act subject to the rules that may be made under the Act, the Managing Officer may transfer any property out of the compensation pool by different modes prescribed therein and one of such modes is sale by public auction. Rules are made under Section 40 of the Act which may, inter alia, provide for the procedure for the transfer of property out of the compensation pool and the manner of realisation of sale proceeds. Chapter 14 of the Rules provides the procedure for sale of property in the compensation pool and Rule 90 appearing in this Chapter provides for procedure for sale of property by public auction, whereas, Rule 92 procedure for setting aside a sale. The relevant Rules are as under: 90. Procedure for sale of property by public auction.-(1) ... (2) The Settlement Commissioner or other officer empowered to sell any such properly shall cause a proclamation of the intended le o be made in the language of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. (3) Notice of the intended sale shall be given at least fifteen days before, the proposed sale and every such notice shall state the date, time and place of the proposed sale, the description of the property to be sold, its location and boundaries where possible, the terms and conditions of the sale and any other particulars which the Settlement Commissioner or other officer considers material. One copy of the notice shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other officer to advertise the sale in newspapers and in such other manner as he may deem fit. One copy of the notice shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property to be sold. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other officer to advertise the sale in newspapers and in such other manner as he may deem fit. (4) No sale shall take place until after the expiry of a period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice. (5) Every auction of a property under these rules shall be subject to a reserve price fixed in respect of the property, but such reserve price may not be disclosed. (6) The Officer conducting the auction may in his discretion with hold sale of any property without assigning any reasons therefor. (7) The Officer conducting the sale may at his discretion, for reasons to he recorded in writing, adjourn the sale to a specific date and hour and an announcement to that effect shall be made at the time of the adjournment of the sale: Provided that where a sale is adjourned for a period exceeding four teen days, a fresh notice shall be published. (8) The person declared to be the highest bidder for the property at the public auction shall pay in cash or by a cheque drawn on a scheduled bank and endorsed "good for payment upto six months" or in such other form as may be required by the Settlement Commissioner, immediately on the fall of the hammer a deposit not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount of his bid to the officer conducting the sale and in default of such deposit, the property may be resold. (9) The initial deposit shall be refunded if the net compensation exceeds the purchase price. (10) The bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose: Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of the auction. (10) The bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose: Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days from the date of the auction. (11) Intimation of the approval of a bid or its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder (hereinafter referred to as the auction purchaser) by registered post acknowledgement due and the auction purchaser shall where the bid has been accepted be required within fifteen days of the issue of such intimation to send by registered post or to produce before the Settlement Commissioner or any other officer appointed by him for the purpose a treasury challan in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money: Provided that the Settlement Commissioner or other officer appointed by him in this behalf may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period of fifteen days by such period, not exceeding fifteen days, as the Settlement Commissioner or such other officer may think fit: Provided further that the period extended under the proceeding proviso may further be extended (without any limit of time) by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. (12) ... (13) ... (14) ... (15) ... 92. Procedure for setting aside a sale.- (1) Where a person desires that the sale of any property made under Rule 90 or 91 should be set aside because of any alleged irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale (including in the case of a sale by public auction in the notice of the sale) he may make an application to that effect to the Settlement Commissioner or any officer authorised by him in this behalf to approve the acceptance of the bid or tender, as the case may be. (2) Every application for setting aside a sale under this rule shall be made- (a) where the sale is made by public auction within seven days from the date of the acceptance of the bid; (b) where the sale is made by inviting tenders, within seven days from the date when the tenders were opened. (2) Every application for setting aside a sale under this rule shall be made- (a) where the sale is made by public auction within seven days from the date of the acceptance of the bid; (b) where the sale is made by inviting tenders, within seven days from the date when the tenders were opened. (3) if after consideration of the facts alleged, the officer to whom an application is made under this rule is satisfied that any material irregularity or fraud has been committed in the publication or the conduct of the sale, he may make an order that the property be reauctioned or be resold by inviting fresh tenders, as the case maybe: Provided that no sale shall be set aside under this rule unless upon the facts proved, such officer is satisfied that the applicant has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity or fraud, as the case may be. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, the Settlement Commissioner may of his own motion, set aside any sale under this Chapter if he is satisfied that any material irregularity or fraud which has resulted in a substantial injury to any person has be committed in the conduct of the sale. Section 22 of the Act provides for appeal to the Settlement Commissioner against an order of the Settlement Officer or Managing Officer and Section 23 of the Act provides for appeal to the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the order of the Settlement Commissioner and others. Section 24 of the Act gives power of revision to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who may at any time call for the record of any proceedings under the Act in which Settlement Officer or other Officers stated therein has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and he may pass such an order in relation thereto as he thinks fit, but no order prejudicial to any person shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard. The residuary powers of the Central Government are provided under Section 33 of the Act, in exercise of which the Central Government may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under the Act and may pass such order in relation thereto as in its opinion the circumstances of the case require and as is not inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. The objections of Respondents 7 to 12 were under Rule 92 of the Rules which were dismissed and the sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner vide his judgment dated 21-3-1988 against which appeal was filed by Respondents 7 to 12 under Section 43 of the Act and ultimately the matter was decided by the Secretary (Relief arid Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. 20. At this stage it may be pointed out that according to Shri Goel, learned Counsel appearing far the Petitioners, instructions (Annexure PC to the writ petition) were applicable for the sale of the property in dispute and not the Rules. The material difference between the two, as pointed out by Shri Goel, is that under the proviso to Para 9 of these instructions, the objectors i.e. Respondents 7 to 12 were required to deposit a sum equivalent to the highest bid plus 20% as earnest money and under take to buy the property at this enhanced value if as a re of re-auction the property does not fetch a price higher than the enhanced value referred to above Shri God has also pointed out that in view of this provision the Settlement Commissioner had passed stay order subject to deposit of auction money plus 20% challenge money, which the Respondents 7 to 12 did not comply with and the stay order was vacated. It is submitted that on their failure to deposit this amount, their objections to the auction were not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed on this count alone. Shri Goel has also referred to one judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1969 P and H 4, wherein it is observed that after the package deal the Rules stood abrogated and the Rules made by the Punjab Government took their place. Shri Goel has also referred to one judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Chander v. The State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1969 P and H 4, wherein it is observed that after the package deal the Rules stood abrogated and the Rules made by the Punjab Government took their place. Package deal, as mentioned in Para 4 of this judgment, was a financial arrangement between the Central Government and the then Punjab Government for the disposal of the acquired evacuee properties, for which no instrument of conveyance under Article 299 of the Constitution was drawn up The perusal of Annexure PC shows that these instructions were made by the Punjab Government, Department of Rehabilitation for the sale of evacuee properties including urban agricultural land, which were purchased by the Punjab Government from the Central Government in a package deal. 21. As Respondents 1 to 5 have admitted in their reply-affidavit that instructions contained in Annexure PC were applicable to the property in dispute, by order dated l3-7-l995 we directed the Respondents 1 to 5 to file additional affidavit of the same Officer on whose affidavit the earlier reply was filed clarifying the position. In the additional affidavit, the Respondents stuck to their earlier stand on the basis of letter dated 28-8-1969 written by the then Secretary, Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of Himachal Pradesh addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation), New Delhi and his reply dated 24-3-1977 (Annexures R-I and R-II). From these letters it is clear that consequent upon reorganisation of erstwhile State of Punjab, the Districts of Kangra, Shimla and some other hilly areas came over to Himachal Pradesh, in which there were number of evacuee properties. Finding the instructions of the Punjab Government in contradiction to the Rules, the then Secretary, Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of Himachal Pradesh sought approval of Government of India in his letter dated 28-8-1969 addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation), New Delhi to the arrangement under which evacuee properties in new areas would he sold as per those instructions, which was granted by letter dated 24-3-1970 (Annexure R-II). 22. 22. Therefore, from the material on record it is not clear under which provision and by which mode the instructions (Annexure PC) were promulgated, as such, these could not take the place of statutory rules framed under Section 40 of the Act. The Punjab Government might have framed these instructions for the guidance of its Officers for the sale of evacuee properties received by it under the package deal but these could not abrogate the statutory rules and any thing contrary in the instructions to the Rules would he ignored. In Ram Chandra's case (supra), the question whether the instructions made by the Punjab Government for the sale of evacuee properties received by package deal superseded the Statutory Rules was neither in dispute nor examined by the learned Judge. Even the alleged sanction granted by the Central Government vide letter dated 24-3-1970 (Annexure R-II) to continue applying the instructions of Punjab Government for the sale of evacuee properties in new areas of Himachal. Pradesh, does not change the legal position. 23. Viewing it from another angle that assuming the objections of Respondents 6 to 12 were not maintainable, as they failed to deposit the amount as per proviso to Para 9 of the instructions (Annexure PC), the matter could be suo motu looked into by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 24 of the Act and also by the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned orders passed by Respondents 4 and 5 are without jurisdiction. Mere reading of these provisions shows that the jurisdiction of these authorities is very wide, they may at any time call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in. which Settlement Officer has passed an order for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to legality and propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as they think fit. The order confirming the sale by the Settlement Officer was passed in the proceedings under the Act and Rules which was liable to scrutiny by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Central Government. The order confirming the sale by the Settlement Officer was passed in the proceedings under the Act and Rules which was liable to scrutiny by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of the Central Government. The rider as provided un Sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of the Rules to satisfy from the material on r cord that any material irregularity or fraud has been committed in the publication or conduct of the sale resulting any substantial injury is not there for exercising revisional and residuary powers under Sections 24 and 33 of the Act. 24. In view of our findings that the Rules continued governing the sale of the property in dispute, the objections filed by Respondents 7 to 12 that the auction was not conducted in fair and just manner, were maintain able. We find that despite the serious allegations made against Naib-Tehsildar Kirpa Ram, the Sale Officer, the Settlement Officer did not inquire into by giving opportunity to Respondents 7 to 12 to substantiate them by adducing evidence despite their request made in this regard by moving an application dated 19-3-1988. 25. The allegations that the auction was not held as per the time table given in the auction notice and the auction proceedings were obstruct ed by some persons find support from the report submitted by the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales), the successor of Shri Kirpa Ram, who had retired two days after conducting the sale, to the Deputy Secretary (Revenue)-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Shimla. He had stated that Naib-Tehsildar Shri Kirpa Rain had reached on the spot at 11.00 a.m., started proceedings one hour late at 12.00 Noon due to rains and continued upto 3.00 p.m. when some drunkards gathered there and disturbed the function of the auction. This information was brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Settlement Officer (Sales), Shimla. The Settlement Officer (Sales) had requested the Superintendent of Police to send a police party on the spot where the auction was being conducted. He had also pointed out that auction had started from Rs. 50,000 and upto 3.00 p.m. the highest bid was Rs. 2,15,000 which finally had risen to Rs. 7,11,000 at 5.15 p.m. and thereafter it was closed as nobody came forward to give bid more than this amount. He had also pointed out that auction had started from Rs. 50,000 and upto 3.00 p.m. the highest bid was Rs. 2,15,000 which finally had risen to Rs. 7,11,000 at 5.15 p.m. and thereafter it was closed as nobody came forward to give bid more than this amount. According to him, there was no mala fide on the part of his predecessor conducting the sale. 26. We also find that even during the course of proceedings of auction Respondent No. 6 filed written objections at 3.30 p.m. on the spot that it was not being conducted in a fair and just manner. Out of Respondents 7 to 12 some had also sent telegrams for cancelling the auction immediately after the auction was over and all of them had filed objections under Rule 92 of the Rules as well as under Rule 11D(12) of the Evacuee Interest (Separation) Rules, 1951 which show that all was not right with the conduct of proceedings of auction. The fact that the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales Officer) was to retire after two days and the allegations that he was whisked away by the representatives and persons of the Petitioners and the admission that proceedings of the auction started late due to rain and also that these were disturbed by some miscreants and the Naib-Tehsildar (Sales Officer) had to inform the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) who further requested the Superintendent of Police for police protection and the objections during the course of the auction and immediately thereafter speak volumes that the auction was not being conducted in a fair and just manner as a consequence of which the property sold would not have got the best price. This cannot be disputed that the property in dispute is a priced property being situated on The Mall and in the heart of Shimla town and it consists of num of shops, business premises and residential sites, has been taken note of by the Settlement Commissioner in his judgment, but it was sold for a small amount of Rs. 7,11,000. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was right in comparing the price for which the property in dispute was sold with the price the adjoining property admittedly received during the relevant time. 27. The proposition of law as held in Smt. Laikunnissah v. Hari Prasad and Ors.; Union of India and Ors. v. Sh. Ralli Ram and Ors. 7,11,000. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was right in comparing the price for which the property in dispute was sold with the price the adjoining property admittedly received during the relevant time. 27. The proposition of law as held in Smt. Laikunnissah v. Hari Prasad and Ors.; Union of India and Ors. v. Sh. Ralli Ram and Ors. and V.V. Narain Chetty v. Nenla Dhanamma and Anr. that inadequacy of price fetched at an auction sale is no ground for setting it aside, cannot be disputed, however, it will depend upon the facts of each case. If in the facts and circumstances on record it is found that for the failure to publish the proclamation in accordance with law as to give wide publicity or to conduct the proceedings of auction iii a fair and just manner the property sold could not secure the best price and the price realised was inadequate, the prejudice is apparent a the auction can be set aside under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 92 of the Rules as well as Rule 90 of Order 21, Code of Civil Procedure which provisions are almost similar. For this view we find support from the judgment in M/s Annapurna Industries and Anr. v. Syndicate Bank and Ors. (supra) Despite tie similar provision there is a difference between the sale made under the orders of the Court in an execution of a decree and the sale of an evacuee property, in the case of which loss occurs to the composition pool and the public exchequer. 28. In view of above discussion, we do not find merit in this writ petition. The thief Settlement Commissioner and the Secretary (Relief and Rehabilitation) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh exercising the powers of Central Government were within their jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 2l passed by the Settlement Commissioner, as a result of which the sale of the property in dispute made in favour of the Petitioners also stood cancelled. The directions given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the last para of his judgment dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure PO) will be duly complied with. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to hear their own costs. The directions given by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the last para of his judgment dated 6-1-1990 (Annexure PO) will be duly complied with. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to hear their own costs. However, the auction money deposited by the Petitioners, which is lying in fixed deposit, will be returned alongwith upto date interest accrued thereon to them immediately.