ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - This order shall dispose of a revision petition under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which was originally disposed of by the order dated 19.2.1981 of Sh. K.D. Vasudeva, my Ld. Predecessor and the same was set aside by the Honble High Court judgment dated 22.7.1997 in C.W.P. No. 1771/1981 titled as Raj Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Revenue and others. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner Raj Kumar purchased evacuee property No. 2653/9 at Amritsar in open auction for Rs. 9600/- in the year 1969. He deposited earnest money amounting to Rs. 1920/- on 14.11.1969 and prayed for more time to deposit the balance price. He was given an extension upto 6.12.1969. A registered notice was then issued to him on 2.1.70 directing him to produce the challan regarding the payment of balance price by 16.1.70, which notice was received by him on 5.1.70. On his failure either to produce the treasury challan regarding payment or to make an application for extension for depositing the balance amount, the Managing Officer (Sales) cancelled the sale vide his order dated 22.1.1970, thereby forfeiting the earnest money and directed that the disputed property should be transferred to the State Government in Package Deal. However, the Managing Officer (Headquarters), vide his order dated 18.3.74 allowed Raj Kumar (petitioner herein) to deposit the balance amount, which he deposited (Rs. 7680) on 15.4.74. Meanwhile during the pendency of the case, Ajaib Singh respondent No. 5 made an application on 1.1.1977 for the transfer of disputed property to him on the basis of his occupation. The Asstt. Settlement Officer (A)-cum-Managing Officer on 22.12.77 made a suo-moto reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, for quashing the order dated 18.3.74 of the Managing Officer, but the Chief Settlement Commissioner returned the reference on 4.4.78 for adding the auction file, which, according to him, was necessary for disposing of the case. On receipt of the transfer file, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer rejected the request of Raj Kumar (petitioner herein) on 26.11.79 and ordered the disposal of the property under the extant policy of the Rehabilitation Department. Raj Kumar assailed the validity of the orders dated 22.1.70 and 26.11.79 of the Managing Officer (Sales) and Asstt. On receipt of the transfer file, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer rejected the request of Raj Kumar (petitioner herein) on 26.11.79 and ordered the disposal of the property under the extant policy of the Rehabilitation Department. Raj Kumar assailed the validity of the orders dated 22.1.70 and 26.11.79 of the Managing Officer (Sales) and Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Jalandhar, respectively in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, who feeling convinced that the delayed deposit of the balance auction price was beyond the control of the auction purchaser and that it was not deliberate, accepted the appeal on 17.12.79 and directed the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer to issue the sale Certificate in favour of Raj Kumar (petitioner herein), if the property was still available for disposal. Aggrieved by this order, Ajaib Singh (petitioner) preferred a petition before the Settlement Commissioner for being impleaded as a party which request was turned down on 8.1.80. Still feeling dissatisfied Ajaib Singh filed a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who dismissed the same vide his order dated 7.5.80. Ajaib Singh filed a revision petition under section 33 of Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954 to challenge the order dated 7.5.80 of Chief Settlement Commissioner. The said revision petition was accepted on 19.2.1981 by Sh. K.D. Vasudeva, Financial Commissioner Revenue, my Ld. predecessor with the following observations :- "7. I have carefully considered the argument advanced for both the sides and also gone through the record. In the presence of the order of cancellation dated 22.1.1970, passed against respondent No. 5, it was not open to him to seek transfer of the property except by way of challenging that order in appeal and getting it set aside. But apparently he did not choose to do so and cleverly resorted to the device of applying for depositing the balance amount in the year 1973 in what he termed "at his own risk". This was nothing short of a fraudulent attempt to nullify the order already passed against him, against which he had not availed of any remedy provided to him under the law. It was rightly held by the Managing Officer on 26.11.1979 that the property could not be transferred in favour of the respondent because of his predecessor having already cancelled it on 22.1.1970. It was rightly held by the Managing Officer on 26.11.1979 that the property could not be transferred in favour of the respondent because of his predecessor having already cancelled it on 22.1.1970. Then again, the respondent did not proceed with clean hands and secured an order favourable to him, without impleading the petitioner as a party. It is indeed surprising that the Ld. C.S.C. has disposed of this entire matter with the cryptic remark that since the balance amount has also been paid long ago, the sale stands finalised. I wish he had gone into the matter in depth and viewed in the proper perspective the nature of the conduct of Raj Kumar, respondent, and his attempts to secure this property by hook or by crook. This obviously should not have been allowed to succeed. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find this to be a fit case for interference under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, in exercise of the residuary powers of the Central Govt. I accordingly accept the revision petition, quash the impugned orders and order cancellation of the sale certificate in favour of respondent No. 5 and direct that the petitioners application said to be pending before the Tehsildar (Sales), Amritsar, shall be proceeded with on merits." Raj Kumar successfully assailed the aforesaid order dated 19.2.1981 by filing a C.W.P. No. 1771/1981 before the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. While allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 19.2.1981 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue vide its judgment dated 22.7.1997 the Honble High Court ruled as under :- "From the contents of Para 6, it is thus clear that the Ld. Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to Govt. Punjab has given a finding that the order of cancellation dated 22.1.1970 was not challenged by the writ petitioner by filing an appeal under the provisions of the Act but this finding is totally perverse and is contrary to the facts on record. The order dated 17.12.1979 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, itself shows that the writ petitioner had filed the appeal under section 22 of the Act against the order dated 22nd January, 1970 of the Managing Officer (Sales). From this it is clear that while passing the impugned order P.6 (Annexure P-4), the Ld. The order dated 17.12.1979 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, itself shows that the writ petitioner had filed the appeal under section 22 of the Act against the order dated 22nd January, 1970 of the Managing Officer (Sales). From this it is clear that while passing the impugned order P.6 (Annexure P-4), the Ld. Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to Govt., Punjab, did not apply his mind and as such, this order cannot be sustained. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.2.1981 (annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to Govt., is set aside and the case is remanded back to the said authority to pass the orders afresh in accordance with circumstances of the case. The parties, are, however, left to bear their own costs." Pursuantly, the present Misc. Application dated 29.9.97 was made on behalf of Raj Kumar for deciding the original revision petition which had earlier been disposed of by Sh. K.D. Vasudeva, my Ld. predecessor, that is how the matter is again before me. I have examined the records of the case carefully and heard the arguments of counsels for both the parties. With the setting aside of the order dated 19.2.1981 of my Ld. Predecessor, the parties are relegated to the position as obtaining at the time of filing of revision petition under section 33 of the Displaced Persons (C and R) Act, 1954 before him. In his order dated 26.11.1979, the Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer, Punjab, Jalandhar observed that the auction made in favour of Raj Kumar on 24.7.1969 had since been cancelled and the earnest money had been forfeited by the order dated 22.1.1970 of the Managing Officer (Sales) of the erstwhile Settlement Organisation who had further directed that property should be transferred to the State Govt. in package Deal. In the result the Ld. Asstt. Settlement Officer (S)-cum-Managing Officer vide his order dated 26.11.1979 rejected the request of Raj Kumar and directed that the property be disposed of under the extant policy of the Department. However, the ld. Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar accepted the appeal of Raj Kumar vide his order dated 17.12.1979 on the ground that he was convinced that the late deposit of the balance price by Raj Kumar was beyond his control and was not deliberate. However, the ld. Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar accepted the appeal of Raj Kumar vide his order dated 17.12.1979 on the ground that he was convinced that the late deposit of the balance price by Raj Kumar was beyond his control and was not deliberate. In his order dated 7.5.1980, the Chief Settlement Commissioner concurred in the view of Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jalandhar appearing in his order dated 17.12.1979. The earnest money amount to Rs. 1920/- was deposited by Raj Kumar on 14.11.1969. He was given an extension upto 6.12.1969 for deposit of the balance price. Thereafter a registered notice was issued on 2.1.70 calling upon him to pay the balance price by 16.1.1970. When he failed to pay the balance price, the Manging Officer Sales cancelled the sale vide his order dated 22.1.970 thereby forfeiting the earnest money. When Raj Kumar had miserably failed to comply with the orders of the concerned authority to deposit the balance price there was absolutely no justification for the Managing Officer (Hqrs.) to pass the order dated 18.3.1974 in his favour allowing him to deposit the balance amount on 15.4.74. On the other hand the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer was amply justified in passing the order dated 26.11.1979 rejecting the request of Raj Kumar and ordering the disposal of property under the extant policy of the Rehabilitation Department. Raj Kumar was specifically directed to deposit the balance price by 16.1.70 and on his failure to do so this sale was cancelled vide order dated 22.1.1970. He could not be permitted to take shelter under the plea that his failure to deposit the amount was not deliberate. The order dated 17.12.1979 passed by the Settlement Commissioner for issuing sale certificate in favour of Raj Kumar was arbitrary and perverse. The Chief Settlement Commissioner also did not apply his mind in affirming the same vide his order dated 7.5.1980. In fact when Raj Kumar had failed to deposit the balance price within the stipulated period, he was not entitled even to further notice. However, the department displayed unmerited fairness in granting him extension to deposit the amount, but he did not bother to do so. In fact when Raj Kumar had failed to deposit the balance price within the stipulated period, he was not entitled even to further notice. However, the department displayed unmerited fairness in granting him extension to deposit the amount, but he did not bother to do so. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of Delhi High Court in K.N. Kapoor v. U.O.I., 1976 AIR D-31, wherein held as under :- "Where the purchaser of Property at a public auction fails to comply with the conditions imposed by Rule 90(11), (12) and (13) and fails to deposit the full price the purchase becomes a nullity and the purchaser has no claim to the property under Rule 90(14) and no order canceling the auction sale is necessary." In the said judgment of Delhi High Court reliance was placed on the judgments of the Apex Court reported as; AIR 1954 Supreme Court 349; AIR 1958 Supreme Court 249; AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1994. Thus it is well settled that the provision for payment of the price is mandatory and if the purchaser fails to deposit the full price, the purchase becomes nullity and no order cancelling is necessary. Thus Raj Kumar had forfeited his claim for the transfer of property in his favour long before the passing of the order dated 18.3.74 by the Managing Officer (Hqrs.) and the deposit of the balance price on 15.4.1974 did not have the effect of condoning and sanctioning his default. The said order was wholly unjustified. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer having acted rightly in rejecting the request of Raj Kumar vide his order dated 26.11.1979, the Asstt. Settlement Commissioner committed patent error and irregularity in passing the order dated 17.12.1979 in favour of Raj Kumar. This error was further perpetuated by Chief Settlement Commissioner who affirmed the aforesaid order vide his order dated 7.5.1980. Accordingly, the orders dated 17.12.1979 and 7.5.1980 are not at all sustainable and are set aside. On the other hand the order dated 26.11.1979 of the Asstt. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer deserves to be affirmed and I order accordingly. It may not be out of context to mention here that though the Honble High Court accepted the writ petition of Raj Kumar by setting aside the order of Sh. K.D. Vasudeva, my learned predecessor, he has not even signed and verified the present application. Settlement Officer (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer deserves to be affirmed and I order accordingly. It may not be out of context to mention here that though the Honble High Court accepted the writ petition of Raj Kumar by setting aside the order of Sh. K.D. Vasudeva, my learned predecessor, he has not even signed and verified the present application. As regards Ajaib Singh, I am of the opinion that he is more interested in demolishing the claim of Raj Kumar than establishing his own claim. After making his application he kept on sleeping and did not agitate his claim. However, it may be pertinently noted that the application made by Shri Ajaib Singh has not been disposed of on merits so far. Accordingly the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner is directed to process his application expeditiously, and in case he finds the claim untenable the property should be disposed of in open action without further delay. Announced. Order accordingly.