ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - This is a petition under Section 15(1) of Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 against the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 21.1.1998. In this case land measuring 77 kanals 17 marlas in village Sabowal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi district Kapurthala was sold in restricted auction to one Harbans Lal on 3.7.1970 for Rs. 9300/- and the sale was confirmed on 7.9.1970. Thereafter, Harbans Lal defaulted in payment and the sale was cancelled on 25.10.1972. Subsequently, the very same land was sold in auction on 17.2.1976 to one Harbilas for Rs. 7000/- and sale in favour of Harbilas was confirmed on 15.3.1976. Nearly two years later, on 10.1.1978 one Gian Singh filed an appeal and thereafter revisions against the sale in favour of Harbilas. These were dismissed by Sales Commissioner, Chief Sales Commissioner and the Commissioner on 23.1.78, 6.3.78 and 17.7.84 respectively. A second round of litigation ensued when on 24.1.85 Gian Singh filed another petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This was decided ex-parte against Harbilas on 16.7.85 and the land was ordered to be re-auctioned a third time. Thereafter Harbilas filed an application for setting aside this order and ultimately this order was set aside on 3.11.1987; whereafter, Gian Singhs application was dismissed by Chief Settlement Commissioner in default on 15.1.1988. However, it was restored on the request of Gian Singh but ultimately dismissed on 19.7.1988 as having been withdrawn. 2. Another round of litigation commenced with the legal heirs of Harbans Lal namely his mother, wife and children filing a "revision petition" before the Chief Sales Commissioner on 1.4.1991 against the order dated 25.9.72 (actually 25.10.72) pleading that the said cancellation was not sustainable and they should be allowed to deposit the due instalments lumpsum. In this application Harbilas was not made a party but it was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner- cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Shri A.R. Talwar the very next day i.e. on 2.4.91. Harbilas filed a petition against this ex-parte order. So also did one Jagat Singh claiming to be in possession of the land and ultimately the Commissioner remanded the cases to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25.4.94 for passing orders after hearing the parties. Harbilas filed a petition against this ex-parte order. So also did one Jagat Singh claiming to be in possession of the land and ultimately the Commissioner remanded the cases to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 25.4.94 for passing orders after hearing the parties. Vide his order dated 21.12.1994 (as corrected on 26.10.95 for a clerical error) the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the matter had attained finality on 17.10.84 when the Commissioner, Shri Dinesh Chandra had decided the case in favour of Harbilas by up holding the second- auction and further held that this auction could not be questioned at this belated stage. However, the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 21.12.94/26.10.95 was set aside by the Commissioner on 21.1.98 on the following main grounds :- (i) The Tehsildar had no right to cancel the auction for non-payment of instalments of purchase money. That is why Chief Settlement Commissioner Shri A.R. Talwar had cancelled the second auction dated 2.4.91. (ii) After the auction, Harbans Lal had died and his legal heirs did not know about the case. Therefore, they could not deposit the pending instalments. (iii) The rule clearly mentions that recovery of payment is the responsibility of the Tehsildar and he can recover these instalments as arrears of land revenue. The main purpose of making this provision is to ensure that sale is not cancelled unnecessarily, as the poor Harijans can default in making payments. Therefore, the benefit of the rules framed in 1976 under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 had to be allowed to the legal heirs of Harbans Lal, thereby over-ruling the objections of Harbilas that the rules framed in 1976 could not be applied on an auction made in 1970. The Commissioner upheld the order of Shri A.R. Talwar dated 2.4.91. The present petition is against these orders of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. 3. The main grounds agitated in petition are as under :- (i) The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division while passing the impugned order dated 21.1.98 failed in the matter of application of relevant rules to property cancelled under 1962 rules. Rules 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are relevant to the case. 3. The main grounds agitated in petition are as under :- (i) The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division while passing the impugned order dated 21.1.98 failed in the matter of application of relevant rules to property cancelled under 1962 rules. Rules 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are relevant to the case. The question to be determined is whether the cancellation order dated 25.10.72 issued under the Package Deal Rules, 1962 (before the Act of the same name came into existence in 1976) was in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreement executed between Harbans Lal and the Government. (ii) The petition dated 1.4.91 which was accepted by Chief Sales Commissioner-cum-Deputy Commissioner Kapurthala on 2.4.91 was filed after 19 years; of the cancellation of the sale and was badly barred by litigation; Harbans Lals legal heirs respondents No. 4 to 8 had failed to avail legal remedy against cancellation order dated 25.10.72. In this time barred petition Harbilas had not even been made a party and yet the Chief Sales Commissioner had accepted it in great hurry the very next day. Therefore, order dated 2.4.98 was void ab initio. The decision of the Commissioner upholding such an order is illegal and invalid. (iii) The sale in favour of Harbans Lal was cancelled in 1972. He did not file any appeal/revision under the 1962 rules nor was any appeal or revision pending when the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 came into operation. Moreover, even the auction held in favour of Harbilas stood confirmed on 17.3.76 i.e. before the said Act came into operation. Therefore, the rule framed in 1976 could not have precedence over terms of auction as agreed upon between Harbans Lal and the Government in 1970. (iv) The Commissioner has wrongly observed that the L.Rs. of Harbans Lal were ignorant about this matter and that is why they could not pay up the instalments. After the cancellation of sale in favour of Harbans Lal and the auction of land to Harbilas only one Gian Singh kept on filing appeals and revisions in 1979. Harbans Lal became a party in Gian Singhs petition and that too at the revisional stage before the Commissioner. When the matter was remanded by the Commissioner on 17.7.84 Harbans Lal had died but his L.Rs had already joined as respondents and the order was passed in their presence. Harbans Lal became a party in Gian Singhs petition and that too at the revisional stage before the Commissioner. When the matter was remanded by the Commissioner on 17.7.84 Harbans Lal had died but his L.Rs had already joined as respondents and the order was passed in their presence. Even then they did not raise any objection till 1.4.91. In arguments before me the respondents have repeated the grounds agitated by them before the Commissioner, the main argument being that there is no provision for cancellation of auction under the rules and at best the money could be recovered from Harbans Lal as arrears of land revenue. Further, that his L.Rs were ignorant about the proceedings. 3. The sequence of events that has emerged is that the sale was cancelled in 1972 at which time proper notice regarding instalments due and its consequences were conveyed to Harbans Lal. There was no re-auction of the property for four years after its cancellation. At that time Harbans Lal was alive, but no steps were taken to have the cancellation set aside nor was any attempt made to deposit any instalment. On the contrary, till 9.7.88 the entire litigation was carried out by one Gian Singh. From 1972 to 1991 neither Harbans Lal nor his L.Rs filed any appeal or revision to contest either the cancellation or the re-auction. Rather, Harbans Lal became a party in Gian Singhs petition for the first time on 24.3.80. After Harbans Lals death on 12.4.80 his L.Rs put in an application for being impleaded, which request was allowed. Giano mother of Harbans Lal has been shown present at the time of passing of order dated 17.7.84. The plea of the lack of knowledge on the part of the respondent is, therefore, untenable. 4. Coming to the legal grounds taken by the Commissioner for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner these are also not based on the reading of the record. Since the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act and Rules were framed much later, the case of Harbans Lal had to be examined in the light of the terms of agreement between him and the Government and it is quite evident from the letter addressed to Harbans Lal that the cancellation of auction sale was made. In terms of Sr. No. 3 of the terms of agreement. In terms of Sr. No. 3 of the terms of agreement. It is also very clear that when the claim of Harbans Lal against the sale in favour of Harbilas were rejected by the Commissioner on 17.7.84 this order was not contested by his legal heirs in any superior court and instead his legal heirs filed fresh application on 1.4.91 without any cogent reason. In view of these facts the Deputy Commissioner was correct in up holding the sale in favour of Harbilas and rejecting the claim of legal heirs of Harbans Lal and there was no occasion for the Commissioner to arrive at a different conclusion. The petition is accordingly accepted and the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 21.1.98 is set aside. Announced. Petition allowed.