Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 434 (PNJ)

Chaman Lal v. Lachman Singh

2000-04-25

SHYAMA MANN

body2000
ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - Chaman Lal, Prem Kumar sons of Achhar Ram have filed the present petition under Section 15(1) of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 against order dated 20.4.1999 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division vide which he remanded the case to the Tehsildar (Sales) Garhshankar with some observations. 2. As per contents of the petition three chunks of land measuring 31 kanals (comprised in Khasra No. 48//22 (7-0), 23(8-0), 24(8-0), 25(8-0); 14K-16M (comprised in Khasra No. 55//24(6-16), 15(8-0) and 14K-11M (comprised in Khasra No. 54//20(8-3), 21(6-8) were sold to Chain Singh, Achhar Ram, and Pakhar Singh, respectively, by Shri Rajiv Paul, Naib Tehsildar in restricted auction on 27.8.1996 in village Dallewal, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur. The bid was settled at Rs. 38,000/- in case of Chain Singh, Rs. 20,000/- in case of Achhar Singh and Rs. 17,000/- in case of Pakhar Singh. Lachhman Singh, respondent No. 1 in the present petition was not allowed to participate in the auction on the ground that he did not fulfil the requisite conditions and was not a permanent resident of village Dallewal. Aggrieved against these auctions Lachhman Singh filed three separate appeals against Chain Singh, respondent No. 2, Pakhar Ram, respondent No. 3 and Achhar Ram (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) before Shri Pritam Singh, PCS, S.D.O. (C)-cum-Sales Commissioner, Garhshankar for their cancellation. The Sales Commissioner set aside these auctions vide his order dated 13.1.1997 on the presumption that the same had been vitiated on account of certain residents of the village not being allowed to participate in the auctions. Thereafter, Chain Singh, Achhar Singh and Pakhar Singh filed three different appeals before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner who dismissed the same on 10.9.1997. While dismissing the appeals, he observed that the Ration card issued to Lachhman Singh by the Food and Supplies Authorities vide their letter No. AFSO-96/478, dated 28.11.1996 had been proved to be genuine and showed that Lachhman Singh was a permanent resident of village Dallewal. Moreover, Lachhman Singh was ready to pay Rs. 5000/- more than the auction price in each case. Thereafter, three sets of petitions were filed under Section 10(4) of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division by Achhar Ram, Chain Ram and Pakhar Singh. Moreover, Lachhman Singh was ready to pay Rs. 5000/- more than the auction price in each case. Thereafter, three sets of petitions were filed under Section 10(4) of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division by Achhar Ram, Chain Ram and Pakhar Singh. The Commissioner remanded the case through a short order dated 20.4.1999 in which he observed that mere production of a Ration Card should not be considered as the sole proof of residence. He directed the Sales Commissioner to send the revenue officials to the village to have the facts verified from the residents of the village. He also directed that in case it was proved that Lachhman Singh was a resident of the village then he should be allowed to participate in the auction. Chaman Lal and Prem Kumar successors-in-interest of Achhar Ram have come up in revision petition against the said order. Chain Singh and Pakhar Singh who are similarly affected have not filed any revision but have been arrayed as proforma respondents. 3. Notice of the petition was sent to all the respondents. Lachhman Singh, respondent No. 1 is represented by Sh. Y.K. Sharma. While Chain Singh and Pakhar Singh were personally present in Court on 21.12.1999 and 29.2.2000, they did not make any appearance on subsequent dates. 4. The main thrust of arguments on behalf the petitioners is that the dispute regarding residence of Lachhman Singh has been raked up unnecessarily. When the land was put to auction in the village, Lachhman Singhs first bid was as a Harijan and in subsequent bids he staked his claim as a member of the backward classes Nai which was not permissible. It has also been agitated that he is not a landless agriculturist but is employed as a tractor-driver on a farm situated at Jalandhar. However, the main thrust of the petitioners is on proving that Lachhman Singh is not a resident of the village Dallewal. It has been stated that he did not possess a ration card on the date of auction, i.e., 27.8.1996 and applied for the same on 28.8.1996, i.e., a day later and the same was issued to him in back date with effect from 6.8.1996. It has been stated that he did not possess a ration card on the date of auction, i.e., 27.8.1996 and applied for the same on 28.8.1996, i.e., a day later and the same was issued to him in back date with effect from 6.8.1996. When a complaint was lodged against him, the S.D.O. (C) enquired into the matter, whereafter the concerned A.F.S.O. cancelled the Ration Card on 8.11.1996 and gave a copy of the order to Chaman Lal who is a sarpanch and depot holder. However, this ration card was revalidated by the same A.F.S.O. Garhshankar, for which act he was indicted by D.F.S.O. vide his report dated 17.6.1997 submitted to the D.F.S.C. In the petition it has been alleged that the name of the Lachhman Singh is actually Kala Singh and he is a resident of village Mianwal Kaulvian in Police Station Shahkot. The petitioner has also criticised the remand order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar as being vague. It has also been brought out that a criminal case has been registered against the concerned A.F.S.O., Garhshankar on 19.11.1998 for having forged and fabricated the ration card for being used by Lachhman Singh as proof as resident of village Dallewal. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The main thrust of the petitioners is to prove that Lachhman Singh is not a resident of village Dallewal. Lachhman Singh on the other hand maintains that he is a ration card-holder of the village and was unfairly prevented from participating in the auction. The lower courts have also primarily been engaged in discussing this aspect of the matter to the exclusion of a number of crucial facts associated with this auction. Even the Commissioner has remanded the case for further enquiry into whether Lachhman Das is a genuine resident of Dallewal or not. The lower authorities have not tried to dwell on the authority under which the Naib Tehsildars are not authorised to auction selected pockets of Government property as per their own whims and fancies. Such auctions are made as per decisions taken at the State level and they are preceded by vide publicity including release of Press Notes in prominent newspapers. Government instructions dated 15.5.1995 had clearly banned all auctioning of rural evacuee Government lands through open or restricted auction. Such auctions are made as per decisions taken at the State level and they are preceded by vide publicity including release of Press Notes in prominent newspapers. Government instructions dated 15.5.1995 had clearly banned all auctioning of rural evacuee Government lands through open or restricted auction. But the Naib Tehsildar, Rajiv Paul (now Tehsildar) failed to respect these policy instructions and made these auctions at his own level. How he came to a decision that certain chunks of lands were to be sold by restricted auction and the other by open auction is not explained anywhere. There is no mention of how or whether the reserve price was fixed. There are Government instructions dated 13.11.1990 which lay down the manner in which the reserve price is required to be determined by a Committee constituted by the concerned Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, the clandestine manner in which the auction was conducted also invited vide publicity by way of criticism in the news- papers also. But even the Commissioner failed to connect this revision with this criticism when he remanded the matter for further inquiry into the eligibility simpliciter of Lachhman Singh. As a result of detailed inquiry conducted the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, he has found the action of the Naib Tehsildar as totally irregular and uncalled for and he has separately recommended action against him, which papers are under process. It also transpires that more than a dozen parcels of land in this village were disposed of in this manner and the present auction represents only the tip of the iceberg; even the dilapidated building of the local Veterinary Hospital and its compound has been sold in this manner. While disciplinary action against Shri Rajiv Paul is being separately contemplated, there is no occasion for acceding to the prayer of the petitioners and endorsing the auction. To that extent the petition is dismissed. 6. However, it is not possible to endorse the order of the Commissioner, either, and allow the matter to survive to be examined further with reference to the claim of Lachhman Singh as a permanent resident of the village. Therefore, the said order dated 20.4.1999 is quashed. It is reported that the Deputy Commissioner has separately initiated action for setting aside the sale in other cases of this nature. Therefore, the said order dated 20.4.1999 is quashed. It is reported that the Deputy Commissioner has separately initiated action for setting aside the sale in other cases of this nature. The auction was made in violation of Government Policy and directions and therefore cannot be sustained and hence was rightly set aside. The money paid by the petitioner should be refunded forthwith to close this chapter finally. Announced. Order accordingly.