ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - This revision petition under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 has been filed by Gurmail Singh (deceased) now represented by this legal representatives resident of village Sherpur Sadda, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala to challenge the order dated 31.3.92 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby he had upheld the order dated 21.8.90 of Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala. 2. The controversy herein revolves around the land measuring 29 kanals 19 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 26/24 min(3-2), 17 min(7-0), 18 min(5-11), 19(7-4), 25(7-2) situated in Sherpur Sadda, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi. The said land was put to restricted auction on 31.3.84 in favour of Gurmail Singh (now deceased) at the highest bid of Rs. 7,500/-. He deposited Rs. 375/- as earnest money whereafter the case was submitted to the Sales Commissioner for approval who declined the confirmation of sale vide his order dated 24.5.1984 on the ground that the bid was low. Thereafter, this very land alongwith some other land was allotted to Smt. Amarjit Kaur (war widow), resident of Ibrahimwal, Tehsil and District Kapurthala on 11.4.90. The possession of land was given to Sh. G.S. Cheema her General Attorney on 16.4.90. Sh. Gurmail Singh filed a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner against the aforesaid order dated 24.5.84 of the Sales Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 21.8.90 on the ground that the refusal regarding confirmation of auction by the Sales Commissioner was communicated to the revision petitioner on 2.1.86 but he did not file any appeal/revision for a period of four years and thus the revision petition then filed by him was barred by limitation. He further observed that the land being available for allotment had been rightly allotted to Amarjit Kaur as the rights of the parties could not be kept indefinitely in jeopardy. 3. This order dated 21.8.90 of the Chief Sales Commissioner was challenged by Gurmail Singh in revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. While dismissing the revision petition vide his order dated 31.3.92 the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division concurred with the view of Chief Sales Commissioner that the appeal before Chief Sales Commissioner was badly time barred and no sufficient reasons were put forward before the lower court for condoning the delay. The present revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.92 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The present revision is directed against the order dated 31.3.92 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. Meanwhile the vendees for Amarjit Kaur through her General Attorney made an application for being impleaded and this was done. 4. I have carefully examined the record of the case and heard the arguments of the parties. Sh. J.S. Bhutani, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that Gurmail Singh had purchased the land by giving highest bid of Rs. 7,500/- and there is no application for challenging the sale within the prescribed period of ten days. According to him the Sales Commissioner declined the confirmation of sale by passing a one-line order on the ground of inadequacy of sale price without giving any legally valid reasons for the same. According to him the confirmation of sale could not be refused on the ground that the sale was made at a low auction price. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 2,530/- whereas the bid money was three times more than that amount. 5. As regards the bar of limitation Sh. Bhutani vehemently argued that the petitioner Gurmail Singh (now deceased) came to know regarding the allotment of the disputed land to Amarjit Kaur very late and he was never informed regarding the said allotment in favour of Amarjit Kaur. The allowed in favour of Amarjit Kaur was made on 11.4.90 and the possession was shown to have been given just five days later i.e. on 16.4.90. In reply the learned counsel for the respondent argued that Amarjit Kaur had been rightly allotted land as a war widow through her General Attorney G.S. Cheema and therefore Gurmail Singh was not entitled to challenge the same as he did not bother to file an appeal within 30 days of the refusal of confirmation of sale as required under Section 9 of the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976. 6. Sh. J.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for vendees from Amarjit Kaur through Sh. G.S. Cheema, her General Attorney contended that the vendees were bona fide purchasers for consideration and therefore it is too late in the day to upset the allotment in favour of Amarjit Kaur to their prejudice. According to him the land in dispute had been sold by Sh. Sh. J.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for vendees from Amarjit Kaur through Sh. G.S. Cheema, her General Attorney contended that the vendees were bona fide purchasers for consideration and therefore it is too late in the day to upset the allotment in favour of Amarjit Kaur to their prejudice. According to him the land in dispute had been sold by Sh. G.S. Cheema, General Attorney of Amarjit Kaur by sale deed dated 31.10.90 and at the time of purchase the vendees were not aware regarding the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, they were protected by provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. 7. In my opinion it is a fit case for interference in favour of legal representatives of Gurmail Singh. The land in dispute was purchased by Gurmail Singh on 31.1.84 in restricted auction being the highest bidder. Vide his order dated 24.5.84, the Sales Commissioner, Sultanpur Lodhi declined to approve the sale on the ground that the auction sale price was too much on the lower side and the land be auctioned again. No reason was given by aim to come to the conclusion that the sale price was low. Even then there is nothing on record to show as to what action was taken to comply with the order of the Sales Commissioner, Sultanpur Lodhi. However, six years later the disputed land alongwith some other land was suddenly allotted to Smt. Amarjit Kaur (war-widow) resident of village Ibrahim, Tehsil and District Kapurathala on 11.4.1990 and possession of the same was shown to have been given to Sh. G.S. Cheema, her general attorney. On the eve of this allotment, the girdawari of the land was changed in favour of Surjit Singh son of Naranjan Singh and Sadhu Singh son of Shangara Singh. And after the allotment in the name of Amarjit Kaur this land was sold by Shri G.S. Cheema in the name of five persons who were close relations of Surjit Singh (one was his wife, another his sister-in-law) and Sadhu Singh (his three brothers). 8. At this point of time it is necessary to dilate upon the chequered history of the claim of Amarjit Kaur as war-widow. She originally applied for allotment of land as war widow in the prescribed form on 10.10.67. This form was signed in English by her. 8. At this point of time it is necessary to dilate upon the chequered history of the claim of Amarjit Kaur as war-widow. She originally applied for allotment of land as war widow in the prescribed form on 10.10.67. This form was signed in English by her. Her claim was declined by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Punjab (Camp at Kapurthala) vide order dated 7.12.68 on the ground that she had remarried the younger brother of her deceased husband by Chadar Andazi and did not remain a widow. She filed a revision petition before the Chief Sales Commissioner which was dismissed vide order dated 21.3.69 on the ground of limitation. 9. Amarjit Kaur filed a writ petition No. 1283 of 1969 which was accepted by Punjab and Haryana High Court on 11.3.80 wherein it was held that there is no limitation for filing a revision under Section 24 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the case was remanded for re- decision. Pursuantly, the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar vide his order dated 10.12.80 held that since the petitioner had remarried in the family of her deceased husband, she is fully covered under the policy of the Govt. for allotment of land. He remanded the case to the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O., Kapurthala for allowing the allotment of land to petitioner according to rules. Then she made an application dated 13.8.84 before the Tehsildar Sales-cum-M.O., Kapurthala for allotment of land. It appears that at this stage Sh. G.S. Cheema intruded and ostensibly purchased the claim of Amarjit Kaur; he is the only one who identified her before the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O., Kapurthala on 7.12.84 when she made a statement before him and signed the same. The application dated 13.8.84 purports to bear the signatures of Amarjit Kaur alongwith her thumb impression. These signatures tally with the signatures of Amarjit Kaur on her statement dated 7.12.84. But these signatures do not tally with her signatures on her original application. Thereafter, there is a photo copy of a registered power of attorney dated 9.1.85 purportedly from Amarjit Kaur in favour of G.S. Cheema. This power of Attorney bears only the thumb impression of the executor and not her signatures. 10. Eventually, vide order dated 31.12.84 the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O. directed the allotment of 80 kanals of land in village Busowal in favour of Amarjit Kaur @ Rs. 450/- per standard acre. This power of Attorney bears only the thumb impression of the executor and not her signatures. 10. Eventually, vide order dated 31.12.84 the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-M.O. directed the allotment of 80 kanals of land in village Busowal in favour of Amarjit Kaur @ Rs. 450/- per standard acre. On 21.1.85 an application signed by G.S. Cheema and thumb-marked by Amarjit Kaur was made to Tehsildar Sales. Kapurthala for issuance of Dhakhal Parcha. The very next day symbolic possession of that land was given on 22.1.85 while crops were still standing. The record shows that later on Amarjit Kaur completely disappeared from the scene and the entire case was pursued by Sh. G.S. Cheema as her General Attorney. After the allotment of 80 kanals of land in village Busowal it was discovered that three civil suits were pending regarding that very land in the Civil Court at Sultanpur Lodhi, and Sh. G.S. Cheema, General Attorney of Amarjit Kaur made an application for cancellation of land and the allotment of that land was accordingly cancelled vide order dated 22.5.85. Thereafter, the land was allotted in different villages in driblets in numerous transactions on the applications made by G.S. Cheema (General Attorney of Amarjit Kaur) from time to time. Different parcels of land were allotted in different villages, cancelled and reallotted, as per choice and option of Sh. Cheema. The concerned Rehabilitation authorities were unconscionably pliable in his favour and did not decline any request made by Sh. Cheema. The allotment which gave rise to the present controversy was of land measuring 32K-16M major portion of which had been purchased by Gurmail Singh petitioner in auction in 1984. This land was got allotted by Sh. G.S. Cheema on 11.4.1990 and the possession was delivered promptly to him on 16.4.1990. He sold the same to Smt. Gian Kaur wife of Surdinder Singh brother of Surjit Singh, Harvinder Kaur wife of Surjit Singh, Rur Singh, Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh sons of Shingara Singh of Village Sherpur Sadda for an ostensible consideration of Rs. 1,02,000/- vide sale deed dated 31.10.1990. Prior to the sale, with apparently willing connivance of revenue officials the girdawari was got changed in favour of Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh (brother of Rur Singh, Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh). The vendees also made an application for being impleaded in these proceedings claiming themselves to be bona fide purchasers for consideration. 11. Prior to the sale, with apparently willing connivance of revenue officials the girdawari was got changed in favour of Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh (brother of Rur Singh, Harbans Singh and Harjinder Singh). The vendees also made an application for being impleaded in these proceedings claiming themselves to be bona fide purchasers for consideration. 11. The foregoing narration of events manifestly shows that on the clearance of case of allotment of 80 kanals of land to Amarjit Kaur vide order dated 30.12.84 Sh. G.S. Cheema did not miss any time to get executed a General Power of Attorney in his favour. Instead of obtaining allotment of land and getting benefit from its usufruct, Smt. Amarjit Kaur inevitably allowed Sh. G.S. Cheema to take hold of her claim through her General Power of Attorney purporting to have been executed in favour of Sh. G.S. Cheema. Smt. Amarjit Kaur totally disappeared from the scene. Therefore, Sh. G.S. Cheema obtained the symbolic possession of land on 22.1.1985. In the subsequent transactions of allotment, cancellation and reallotment, Smt. Amarjit Kaur remained conspicuously absent and the entire exercise was undertaken and accomplished by Sh. G.S. Cheema who seems to have had easy access to the concerned Rehabilitation authorities. It is quite evident that Smt. Amarjit Kaur washed her hands off the claim at its inception. Her conduct leaves much to be desired. The records are silent regarding the benefit permeating to her in passing on the claim to G.S. Cheema under the sordid camouflage of power of attorney. 12. The policy for allotment of land to the war widows was formulated with the avowed object of rehabilitating them and enabling them to eke out a respectable living from the usufruct of that land. Keeping in view the miserable plight usually befalling a Hindu widow, the aim of the policy was also to save those who were dependent on land from leaning on others for their livelihood. That is why the framers of the relevant rules inserted various provisions to safeguard alienation of land outside the family of the killed soldiers. As per provisions of the rules allotment of land was not the mandatory right of every war widow. That is why the framers of the relevant rules inserted various provisions to safeguard alienation of land outside the family of the killed soldiers. As per provisions of the rules allotment of land was not the mandatory right of every war widow. Rather, Rule 4(1)(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Rules, 1976 clearly laid down that such widows would be "entitled to allotment, on payment of the cultivable land as far as possible, upto the limit of ten ordinary across inclusive of their own holdings". Such land was allotted by Govt. at throw away price of a few hundred rupees per acre. This object would stand defeated if the war widows resort to the transfer of claims at the threshold as appears to have been done by Smt. Amarjit Kaur herein. The documents commencing from the application dated 10.10.1967 of Amarjit Kaur (in the prescribed form) which bears her signatures in English, followed by a number of other documents including the General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. G.S. Cheema (which only bears her thumb-impression) give rise to suspicion against the genuineness of these documents. It is evident that Smt. Amarjit Kaur was lost in oblivion and Sh. G.S. Cheema her so-called General Attorney assumed the reins of the case and adopted fair or foul means to exhaust the claim for 80 kanals. The genuineness of Power of Attorney, only a photo copy of which is available on the record, is most doubtful as it bears only thumb-impression of Amarjit Kaur. It follows that the vendees from Sh. G.S. Cheema of 32 K 16 M of land (including land measuring 29K-19M which was bid for by Gurmail Singh in auction in 1984) cannot be considered to be bona fide purchasers deserving the protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1982. There is something more to fortify this conclusion of mine. Record shows that Nazar Singh father of Gurmail Singh continued to remain in possession of the land for many long years and even after his death the girdawaries continued to be shown in his name upto 1988, whereafter Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh who belong to the family of vendees got khasra girdawaries changed in their name vide order dated 9.3.1990 followed by order dated 28.11.90. No reason for change in long standing girdawaries was given. The sale deed was executed on 31.10.1990. No reason for change in long standing girdawaries was given. The sale deed was executed on 31.10.1990. The position in this respect has already been brought out in great detail in para 10 above. It is evident that Surjit Singh and Shangara Singh obtained possession which was followed by execution of the sale deed. In the intervening period the matter remained pending from 1.6.90 to 21.8.92 before Sh. A.R. Talwar, DC-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala and Sh. N.K. Arora, Commissioner, Jalandhar Division which culminated in the order dated 31.3.1992 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. When the concerned parties were engaged in serious litigation regarding the land in dispute, the vendees, though shown as residents of the village itself, chose to ignore this and went ahead with the sale. The vendees are not entitled to the benefit of sale in their favour there being incurable defect in the title of Sh. G.S. Cheema of which vendees cannot plead ignorance. 13. As regards the claim of Gurmail Singh who is now represented by his legal representatives (minor children through their guardian Karnail Singh, his wife and his mother also having died during the pendency of this petition), I am of the opinion that the Sales Commissioner patently erred in declining to confirm the sale in his favour vide his order dated 29.5.1984 on the ground of inadequacy of auction price. The reserve price was fixed at Rs. 2530/-. The highest bid was Rs. 7500/- which is almost three times the reserve price. Thus, it passes ones comprehension as to what weighed with the Sales Commissioner to decline the confirmation of auction on the sole ground of inadequacy of consideration. It is somewhat intriguing to note that the Sales Commissioner did not quote any reasonable price to justify his illogical conclusion regarding inadequacy of highest bid. He arbitrarily passed a cryptic and non-speaking order which betrays complete absence of application of mind. Therefore, with no stretch of imagination is it possible to subscribe to the fallacious view hazarded by the Sales Commissioner regarding inadequacy of consideration; and consequential non-confirmation of auction sale. It is interesting to note that auction was conducted on 31.1.1984 and order regarding non-confirmation was passed on 24.5.1984 and intimation regarding non-confirmation was conveyed to Gurmail Singh on 6.2.1986 and that too in response to his application dated 18.1.1986. It is interesting to note that auction was conducted on 31.1.1984 and order regarding non-confirmation was passed on 24.5.1984 and intimation regarding non-confirmation was conveyed to Gurmail Singh on 6.2.1986 and that too in response to his application dated 18.1.1986. It is not clear as to why intimation was not sent to him with optimal promptitude. In the wake of this inaction on the part of the concerned functionaries coupled with the fact that the order dated 24.5.1984 is patently illegal I am of the view that it is a fit case for ignoring the ground of laches. It follows that the subsequent order dated 21.8.1990 and dated 31.3.1992 of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division respectively, which affirmed the order of Chief Sales Commissioner are also liable to be set aside. In the result I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.8.1990 and 31.3.1992 and further direct that the possession of land sold to Gurmail Singh in restricted auction be restored to his legal representatives subject to payment of balance sale price. 14. As regards the sale of land made by Sh. G.S. Cheema the so called General Power of Attorney of Amarjit Kaur, I would be failing in my duty if I leave the things undisturbed. As already stated the General Power of Attorney set up by Sh. G.S. Cheema as also some application purporting to have been made by Amarjit Kaur for getting her claim of land bear thumb impressions and not signature unlike the original application in the prescribed form. Therefore, it is evident that the GPA and her applications which bear her thumb impression are not genuine. It may be pertinently pointed out that at the time of final hearing when Sh. G.S. Nagra, Advocate counsel of G.S. Cheema was called upon to indicate if Amarjit Kaur was dead or alive, he causally stated that it was not for him to know this as he was attorney for Sh. G.S. Cheema and not for Amarjit Kaur. This statement fortifies a well-founded suspicion of this Court that Sh. G.S. Cheema may not be holding valid power of attorney for Amarjit Kaur and the same may be fabricated and fictitious followed by the applications which did not bear the signatures of Amarjit Kaur. G.S. Cheema and not for Amarjit Kaur. This statement fortifies a well-founded suspicion of this Court that Sh. G.S. Cheema may not be holding valid power of attorney for Amarjit Kaur and the same may be fabricated and fictitious followed by the applications which did not bear the signatures of Amarjit Kaur. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner is directed to make a thorough and indepth probe into validity of the transactions to determine if the allotments of land obtained on behalf of Amarjit Kaur were genuine and take action for retrieving the land allotted in the name of Amarjit Kaur, if the claim is found to be bogus. A copy of this order be transmitted to Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala to comply with the aforesaid directions within six months. Over accordingly.