ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - This is petition under section 33 against the order dated 13.10.98 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and that of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur dated 28.6.1995. 2. The brief facts of this case are that property No. 1171-A, Pathankot was put to auction on 14.5.60 in which late Bawa Bhagat Singh was the higher bidder for Rs. 37,100/-. The reserve price was Rs. 30,000/-. The sale confirmed on 4.6.1960 and 1/10th amount of the action was paid by Bhagat Singh by way of adjustment of his own claim and associating other claims of displaced persons. 3. One Sh. Padam Narain owner of the superstructure of the property in dispute had earlier requested for the transfer of the property on the basis of being on old lessee. This request was turned down by the District Rent Collector and Managing Officer, Gurdaspur vide his order dated 15.3.60 and his appeal against the above order was also dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 26.4.60. The revision petition filed against the above order was also dismissed vide order dated 29.4.61 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In another development an order dated 3.7.1962 by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi was passed on a petition of Sh. Agya Ram to sell the property to him after excluding the superstructure. However, the same was set aside by Sh. S.N. Behal, Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi vide his order dated 1.4.1972, vide which the sale of the above said property through the auction dated 14.5.60 was restored in the name of Bawa Bhagat Singh. Subsequently the correspondence between the parties, the Sale Officers and the Government seems to have continued and the relevant file was lost. Meanwhile the above property was disposed of in parts measuring 454 Sq. yds., 15-8 Sq.yds. and 18 Sq. yds. in favour of Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha, Ravinder Kumar and Joginder Singh on 24.7.79, 25.11.81 and 26.3.1979, respectively. 4. The legal representatives of Bawa Bhagat Singh made an application on 2.12.87 to the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot to issue a Sale Certificate in favour of Bawa Bhagat Singh deceased as a compliance to the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.1972 after cancelling these transfers. This application was dismissed by the Tehsildar (Sales), Pathankot vide his order dated 20.7.89. The legal representatives of Bawa Bhagat Singh made an application on 2.12.87 to the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot to issue a Sale Certificate in favour of Bawa Bhagat Singh deceased as a compliance to the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.1972 after cancelling these transfers. This application was dismissed by the Tehsildar (Sales), Pathankot vide his order dated 20.7.89. Aggrieved by the same LRs of Bawa Bhagat Singh filed an appeal in the court of Sh. Yashvir Mahajan, PCS Sales Commissioner, Pathankot, who accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Tehsildar, Pathankot vide his order dated 8.9.94. Aggrieved by the same, Smt. Shushila Devi widow of Parshotam Dass Marwaha filed a revision in the court of Deputy Commissioner/Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur who vide his order dated 28.6.96 accepted the same and the order dated 8.9.94 passed by the Sales Commissioner, Pathankot was set aside and the order dated 20.7.89 passed by the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales, Pathankot regarding transfer of land measuring 454 Sq.yds. (Property No. 1171-A/III) on 24.7.79 in favour of Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha etc. was upheld. The order of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur dated 28.6.96 has been impugned vide the present petition. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the husband of the respondent No. 1 Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha was a contestant in the auction dated 14.5.60 and he gave at least nine bids at the time of the auction. In this way it was fully with in his knowledge that the property in dispute had been auctioned and that the auction had been duly confirmed in the name of the father of the petitioner and he was also in the knowledge of the final order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.1972 where he was also a party. He has stated that the husband of Sushila devi viz Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha who was alive at that time played a mischief and fraud not only with the Rehabilitation Department of the Govt. of India but also with the Rehabilitation Department of the Punjab Government and also with the father of the petitioner. The said Parshotam Dass Marwaha fraudulently got transferred in his name an area of 454 Sq. Yds. on 27.7.79 and Ravinder Kumar, 15-8 Sq. yds. on 15.11.81 and Joginder Singh 18 Sq. yds. on 26.3.79. The petitioner has stated that the order of Sh. The said Parshotam Dass Marwaha fraudulently got transferred in his name an area of 454 Sq. Yds. on 27.7.79 and Ravinder Kumar, 15-8 Sq. yds. on 15.11.81 and Joginder Singh 18 Sq. yds. on 26.3.79. The petitioner has stated that the order of Sh. S.N. Behal, Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi has observed that the price had been paid through association of claims. Due to the closing of the office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner Govt. of India, the entire work was transferred to the Punjab Govt. Rehabilitation Department and the record had been forward to the Head of the Punjab Govt., Rehabilitation Department, which was subsequently either misplaced or destroyed or dislocated with the connivance of the sales staff and a Sale Certificate could not be issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. The petitioners father made representations to the Rehabilitation Department, Punjab at Jalandhar, on 12.7.79 that the Sales Certificate be issued. The State Government issued a letter to the Govt. of India for sending of the file so that the case could be finalised. The State Department also issued a letter to the Tehsildar (S), Gurdaspur to locate the file and also issued a stay order in this respect on 7.4.80 but the same could not be located. The Government of India, Department of Rehabilitation on 26.3.81 informed the State Government at Jalandhar that the record had not been found there and the file be reconstructed after observing formalities, but the file was never reconstructed by the department and instead the property was transferred in the name of Parshotam Dass Marwaha as mentioned above. The petitioner again approached the Tehsildar (S) with the request that the record be located and the Sale Certificate be issued. This application was given by the father of the petitioner, but he died before the decision could be taken by the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot. Instead of locating the file and examining the case of the father of the petitioner, the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot vide his order dated 20.7.89 rejected the application of the petitioners father. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar (S) Pathankot before the S.D.M./Sales Commissioner, Pathankot who accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 8.9.94 and remanded the case to the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot and directed that the matter to be probed thoroughly after examining the record. The petitioner challenged the order of the Tehsildar (S) Pathankot before the S.D.M./Sales Commissioner, Pathankot who accepted the appeal of the petitioner on 8.9.94 and remanded the case to the Tehsildar (S), Pathankot and directed that the matter to be probed thoroughly after examining the record. This order was challenged by the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur who vide his order dated 28.6.95 accepted the appeal. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the appeal before the court of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who dismissed it on 13.10.98 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Hence this petition. 6. I have hard the counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the entire record. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha, Ravinder Kumar and Joginder Singh got the property transferred in their favour fraudulently despite the fact that the said property had already been auctioned in favour of the petitioner in the year 1960 and was not available for transfer. It has been agitated by the petitioner that the property in dispute was sold under the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954 and Rules 1955 and not under the Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act and only 10% of the bid amount was to be paid as earnest money and not 25% as mentioned in the order dated 20.7.79 of the Tehsildar (Sales) Pathankot. This 10% amount stands adjusted from the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel has further argued that since the sale file was not available some of the copies of the same were collected and attached with the file of Sales Commissioner, Pathankot. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that without setting aside the order of auction and the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.72 no auction could be conducted by the functionaries of the department. Therefore the order of transfer by Tehsildar (S) in favour of the respondent on the basis of unauthorised possession is void ab initio, without jurisdiction, non est and a nullity in the eyes of law. He further argued that the entire amount had been paid by way of cash payment and association of claims as was required under the Rules, 1955. This had been mentioned in the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.1972. It is a case of double disposal of the same property. He further argued that the entire amount had been paid by way of cash payment and association of claims as was required under the Rules, 1955. This had been mentioned in the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 1.4.1972. It is a case of double disposal of the same property. The petitioner has further written in his petition that if the papers are not traceable the applicant is ready to deposit the outstanding amount. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha father-in-law of Sujata Marwaha and grand-father of Grusha Marwaha had been in possession of the property in dispute since 1948 and had paid the whole of the amount of rent to the Government. He applied for transfer of the property in dispute No. 1171-A/III measuring 454 Sq. Yds. in pursuance of the Press Note issued by the Government and the same was transferred in his favour by the Tehsildar (Sales) for a reserve price of Rs. 1,06,440/- on 24.7.69 and this price was reduced to Rs. 94,784/- by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab vide his order dated 14.5.1981. The transfer was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner and the whole of the balance amount was deposited and conveyance deed regarding ownership of the same was issued in his favour by the Tehsildar(Mahal)-cum-(Sales), Pathankot vide his order dated 11.11.86. The conveyance deed was duly registered in the name of the Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha on 25.11.86 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Pathankot. The mutation to this effect has also been sanctioned in the name of Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha and the same was incorporated in the jamabandi of the village. The respondent has also raised construction in the property in dispute. He has further argued that respondent Sujata Marwaha transferred a part of the disputed land through registered sale deed on 6.1.2000, and Bawa Harcharan Singh son of Bawa Bhagat Singh who is presently the petitioner is one of the witnesses on this sale deed. Thus the claim of the petitioner for restoration of land is absolutely untenable. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. The explanation given by the petitioner that the entire amount was paid in cash is not convincing. Considering the huge amount involved it is unbelievable that the petitioner would not keep a receipt or any other documentary evidence regarding payment made into Government account. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. The explanation given by the petitioner that the entire amount was paid in cash is not convincing. Considering the huge amount involved it is unbelievable that the petitioner would not keep a receipt or any other documentary evidence regarding payment made into Government account. The petitioner has not been able to furnish any details in respect of association of claims adjusted in lieu of payments made. Also no explanation is forthcoming why if the whole amount had been paid as per terms of the auction the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest did not take active measures to seek possession timely. The only document on which the petitioner is relying is the order of Sh. S.N. Behal dated 1.4.72. However, this order does not give a categoric finding regarding payment having been made. No evidence has been referred to nor discussed. Paras 2 and 4 of this order contain only oblique reference. The petitioner has not even indicated the approximate date(s) when the amount was paid in case it was paid in instalments the approximate amount of each instalment. Therefore the assertion of the petitioner that full payment was made by him, cannot be accepted. It is evident that the respondent failed to deposit the bid amount as provided under Rule 90(8) of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Rules, 1955 and also failed to deposit the balance amount of auction money as provided under Rule 90(14) of the Rules ibid. Hence initial amount deposited, if any, stood forfeited and the respondent has ceased to have any right over the property in question. Therefore, the property in question has validly been transferred in the name of Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha. The total amount has been deposited by Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha. Conveyance deed vesting ownership rights has been issued in his favour which was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Pathankot. A Mutation has also been sanctioned in favour of Sh. Parshotam Dass Marwaha and the same has been incorporated in the annual record of rights. Thus the presumption of truth under section 44 of the Punjab Act is attached to the entries to the jamabandi. As such the property in question ceased to be evacuee property and had gone out of the compensation pool. It is a matter of record that Sh. Thus the presumption of truth under section 44 of the Punjab Act is attached to the entries to the jamabandi. As such the property in question ceased to be evacuee property and had gone out of the compensation pool. It is a matter of record that Sh. Parshotam Dass had also raised construction on the property by spending huge amount. Though the original file or the original documents relating to the auction held on 14.5.60 are not available it is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not pursue the case after the alleged auction held in his favour on 14.5.60. Bawa Bhagat Singh submitted an application on 12.7.79 before the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-(Sales), Pathankot which was hopelessly time barred specially when he was not in possession of the property in question and he had not cared to deposit the auction money in the Government Treasury upto the filing of the application and to-date. 9. In view of the above discussion the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.