ORDER Shyama Mann, FC. - M.R. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1992-93 are directed against the common order the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, dated 23.10.1992 while M.R. No. 38 of 1995-96 is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, dated 29.1.1996. 2. As the impugned orders arise from a common suo moto reference by the Settlement Officer, Rehabilitation Department before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ropar made on 12.9.1986 and common question of law and issues are involved, these are being disposed of through a common order a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files. 3. The suo moto reference dated 12.9.1986 stated that in the following 15 cases, area measuring 379K-5M situated in village Tangori, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar was shown to have been sold in open/restricted auction on 30.10.1984 for Rs. 97,900/- by the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales, Kharar :- Sr. No. Sale File No. Area Highest Bid. Name of the Purchaser. K M 1. 300/VS. 47-13 11,800-00 Naranjan Singh S/o Santokh Singh. 2. 301/VS. 46-05 11,200-00 Karnail Singh S/o Joginder Singh 3. 302/VS. 11-11 3,200-00 Bhag Singh S/o Sarwan Singh. 4. 303/VS. 45-14 13,000-00 Natha Singh S/o Nagina Singh. 5. 304/Vs. 48-00 12,600-00 Pritam Singh S/o Gobinda. 6. 305/VS. 17-15 4,350-00 Ram Rakha S/o Tolu. 7. 306/VS. 16-00 4,000-00 Tara Singh S/o Isher Singh. 8. 307/VS. 7-04 2,200-00 Gurnam Singh S/o Teja Singh. 9. 308/VS. 22-18 6,000-00 Jaswinder Singh S/o Gurmail Singh. 10. 309/VS. 15-13 4,000-00 Karnail Singh S/o Ajaib Singh. 11. 310/VS. 8-00 2,200-00 Bhagta S/o Jodh Singh. 12. 311/VS. 19-18 4,900-00 Mohinder Kaur W/o Balijinder Singh. 13. 312/VS. 32-16 8,250-00 Kamaljit Kaur W/o Kulwant Singh. 14. 313/VS. 22-17 6,000.00 Baljit Singh S/o Gurmail Singh 15. 314/VS. 17-01 4,200-00 Gurbax Singh S/o Hira Singh. The Settlement Officer reported that the sales had been confirmed in all the 15 cases by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Sales Commissioner, Kharar on 17.12.1984. However, on examination of files, the following irregularities and improprieties in the conduct of sales had been recovered :- (1) The State Government in the Rahabilitation Department had stayed the disposal of evacuee share in Shamlat lands, vide Circular Memo. However, on examination of files, the following irregularities and improprieties in the conduct of sales had been recovered :- (1) The State Government in the Rahabilitation Department had stayed the disposal of evacuee share in Shamlat lands, vide Circular Memo. No. 2(115)Part-I/7378, dated 18.6.82 and dated 7.10.1983 to await the decision of Civil Appeal No. 1401 of 1973 Gram Panchayat, Jamalpur Awana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana v. Central Government involving adjudication of the controversial point of law whether the evacuee share in Shamlat land vests in the Custodian under Section 8 of the Administration of Evancuee Property Act, 1950 or in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. (2) The Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales, Kharar, in violation of the aforesaid instructions of the State Government sold the land in dispute which is Shamlat land, in auction held on 30.10.1984 in favour of the respondent(s). (3) The highest bidder was required to pay the amount of earnest money at the fall of hammer, as envisaged under Rule 6(6)(IX) Part IV of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales, Kharar recovered and deposited the earnest money in these cases on 6.12.84/7.12.84, after the expiry of 36 days from the date of auction ignoring the statutory provisions contained in the Rules ibid of 1976. This constitutes a material irregularity committed by the Tehsildar in the conduct of auction which has rendered the sale/bid bad in law, which is liable to be set aside. (4) The ownership of the land was Shamlat Deh "Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat" and the Tehsildar took wrong decision in changing its ownership in the name of Central Government by sanctioning mutation dated 12.10.84, and moreover the mutation was sanctioned on the same date sitting at Kharar instead of in the village where land is situated. (5) From the facts stated in above paras it is evident that the Tehsildar Kharar acted with an ulterior motive to give undue benefit to these auction purchasers in utter disregard of the Government instructions (supra), in the matter of disposal of disputed Shamlat Deh land by changing its ownership as evacuee land, and thus has committed serious irregularity by flouting Government instructions. (6) The bar on the disposal of evacuee share in Shamlat land was imposed on account of the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 1401 of 1973 - Gram Panchayat village Jamalpur Awana v. Malwinder Singh and others in the Supreme Court. The said appeal has now been decided on 9.7.1985 by virtue of which all the Shamlat Deh lands have been vested in the Gram Panchayat. In view of this decision, the Rehabilitation Department has issued instructions vide circular Memo. No. RII(115) PIV/22446-57, dated 10.10.1985 to the effect that the land in question i.e. evacuee share in Shamlat land stands vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the Rehabilitation Department cannot deal with such lands. Hence the Tehsildar Kharar was not competent to auction the land in these cases, which is liable to be set aside. In view of these facts and circumstances, the Settlement Officer reported that the sales conducted by the Tehsildar (Mahal)-cum-Sales, Kharar on 30.10.84 and order dated 17.12.84 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Sales Commissioner, Kharar confirming these sales were bad in law and liable to be set aside. The Sale Files were duly attached with this suo moto reference. 4. On receipt of this suo moto reference, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Rupnagar sent a notice to the respondents and as per his recorded order their replies were received. Sh. Karnail Singh, Kanungo Sales, Rupnagar appeared before him on behalf of the Rehabilitation Department. The following arguments were taken by the respondent, auction purchasers :- (i) The entire Tangori village was a Muslim village and therefore it had become Custodian property. The instructions of the Government circulated vide letter No. 7378 dated 16.6.82 and 7.10.83 do not have any bearing on the auctioned land. (ii) As per para 7.29 of the Land Records Manual any clerical mistake in the revenue record could be corrected at any time if that entry had been wrongly copied out in the jamanbandi and this was done by sanctioning mutation No. 934 dated 12.10.84 by the Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Kharar. No appeal was filed against the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade correcting this mistake. (iii) As to the argument that earnest money was not deposited within the stipulated period, it had been tendered by the respondents on the spot. No appeal was filed against the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade correcting this mistake. (iii) As to the argument that earnest money was not deposited within the stipulated period, it had been tendered by the respondents on the spot. Therefore, the respondents should not be held responsible for any default in not depositing that money in the Treasury by any Government functionary. 5. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Rupnagar held that the auctions made on 30.10.84 and subsequently confirmed on 17.12.84 did not suffer from any legal infirmity as alleged in the suo moto reference. He gave the following reasoning for coming to this conclusion :- (I) Tangori as a village inhabited by the Muslims. The Jamanbandi of village Tangori for the year 1951-52 clearly showed that the land in question was custodian property as further reflected in Fard Araji Matruka forming the part of the Jamanbandi. However, a wrong entry was made in the column of ownership of Jamanbandis for the years 1958-59, 1963-64, 1968-69, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1983-84 as subsequently copied out by the halqa Patwari. As such, order dated 12.10.84 sanctioning mutation No. 934 was legally valid. (2) Aggrieved party could have filed an appeal against this order but this was not done. (3) Earnest money was deposited by the auction purchasers/respondents on the spot against receipts. Therefore any delay later on caused by the revenue officials in depositing the amount with the Treasury does not affect the operation of the order so passed by the competent authority in accordance with law. (4) There was no ulterior motive on the part of Tehsildar, Kharar in auctioning the property of the Custodian which fetched Rs. 97,900/- to the Government. (5) Point No. 6 in the reference also does not hold good as it was Custodian property which was auctioned and as such the decision of the Civil Appeal No. 1401 of 1973 followed by instructions dated 10.10.85 issued by the Rehabilitation Department were never interfered with. Additionally, the Chief Sales Commissioner issued a direction to the Tehsildar, Kharar to immediately restore possession of the auctioned property to the respondents within 30 days of the issue of the order to obviate further delay in making them the lawful occupants of the auctioned land. This order was dated 14.12.1988. 6. Additionally, the Chief Sales Commissioner issued a direction to the Tehsildar, Kharar to immediately restore possession of the auctioned property to the respondents within 30 days of the issue of the order to obviate further delay in making them the lawful occupants of the auctioned land. This order was dated 14.12.1988. 6. The order dated 14.12.1988 was challenged by Charan Dass s/o Rounki, Pal Singh s/o Late Naranjan Singh, Bhagta s/o Jodh Singh (petitioners in present M.R. Nos. 8, 9, 10 of 1992-93) before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division under Section 10(4) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Strangely, no revision was filed by anyone from the Rehabilitation Department. The following main grounds were taken by them :- 1. The controversy regarding the ownership of Shamlat properties owned by the Muslims which were entered in the revenue record as evacuee properties had been decided in 1985 by the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, the properties could not be disposed of by the Rehabilitation Department. 2. The mutation in the name of Central Government had been sanctioned in utter violation of the instructions issued by the State Government on 18.6.82 and 17.10.83. These circulars were issued in view of the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court of India which has been decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat holding that the Shamlat properties will vest in the Gram Panchayat and the Custodian has no right to manage, dispose of or control these properties. The petitioners also raised the following questions of law :- i) Whether the Shamlat property which was owned and possessed by the Muslims prior to the Partition of the country would on the migration vest in the Custodian or in the Gram Panchayat ? ii) Whether the Shamlat land owned by Muslims can be auctioned by the Custodian treating it to be evacuee property ? iii) Whether the long standing entry in the Jamabandi recorded as Shamlat Deh can be corrected by a Revenue Officer exercising powers vested under para 7.29 of the Punjab Land Record Manual ? The petitioners thus argued that the property was not Custodian property. The petitioners also pointed out that they had applied for transfer of this property under the earlier relevant Press Notes and their applications were duly diarised as received but were rejected in 1975 on the ground that this was not Custodian property. The petitioners thus argued that the property was not Custodian property. The petitioners also pointed out that they had applied for transfer of this property under the earlier relevant Press Notes and their applications were duly diarised as received but were rejected in 1975 on the ground that this was not Custodian property. Even if for the sake of argument this property was to be treated as Custodian property, the petitioners had a prior right to its transfer under the relevant Press Note having been in possession since long time. Therefore, the auctioning of the property on 30.10.84 and subsequent orders confirming this auction were illegal and deserved to be set aside. After listing out the arguments for and on behalf of the petitioners and respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), Sh. Shyam Lal, gave the following brief findings contained in last para of his order dated 23.10.92:- "I have given a thoughtful consideration to written arguments and gone through the file. In my opinion there is no merit in the revision petition as correction of revenue record was correctly made according to the para 7.29 of the Punjab Land Records Manual as the land in dispute was not Mushtarka but Matruka. Since there is no plausible explanation as to how the Arazi Matruka became Arazi Mushtarka, it is crystal clear that the entry was wrongly made and it was nothing more than a clerical mistake. The Revenue Officer was well within his jurisdiction to rectify a clerical mistake. Therefore, the laws applicable to Shamlat Deh cannot be applied to the Custodian property. Had the land in dispute been Shamlat Deh land, the Gram Panchayat would have contested the case after ownership in Jamabandi was changed from Gram Panchayat to the Central Government. In view of the above discussion, I do not find anything wrong in the orders of the courts below which may warrant interference with the impugned orders in revision. Therefore, the request of the petitioners for recommending the case to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, for acceptance of the revision petition and setting aside impugned orders merits no consideration and the same is turned down." This order dated 23.10.1992 was assailed in M.R. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1992-93. 7. Therefore, the request of the petitioners for recommending the case to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, for acceptance of the revision petition and setting aside impugned orders merits no consideration and the same is turned down." This order dated 23.10.1992 was assailed in M.R. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1992-93. 7. Separately, on 29.4.1991, Chanan Masih, Barkat Masih and Jalal Masih, sons of Sant Ram, Smt. Goma, widow of Babu Ram, Madan Lal, Chaman Lal and Pawan Lal, sons of Babu Ram filed another revision petition before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division against the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 14.12.1988. The crux of this petition was that Sant Ram, their predecessor-in-interest had been continuing in possession of the land in dispute for many years and had expired on 4.98.85. A mutation had been sanctioned in the name of the present petitioners and they were continuing in possession of the land measuring 14 Kanals 8 Marlas as per jamabandi of 1988-89. The petition was directed against one Ram Rakha son of Telu Ram who was one of the auction purchasers and the village Chowkidar for Tangori and also against Gram Panchayat Tangori through its Sarpanch. Karnail Singh s/o Ajaib Singh, Ajmer Singh s/o Lal Singh and Surjit Singh s/o Riar Singh were also impleaded as respondents. The latter two were impleaded as vendees of the property auctioned to Ram Rakha. The grounds in revision were similar to those agitated in the three petitions which culminated in M.R. Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1992-93. It was stated in that petition that the disputed land was alleged to have been put to auction by the Tehsildar Sales Kharar on 20.10.1984. That it was evident from the revenue record consisting of jamabandis for the years 1958-59, 1963-64, 1968-69, 1973-74, 1978-79 and 1983-84 that the land in dispute was recorded as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat, yet Ram Lal Jain AC-II Grade Kharar took shelter under para 7.29 of the Land Record Manual and treating the entries of column of the jamabandi spreading over 24 years as clerical mistake, changed the ownership to Central Govt. It was also brought out that circulars had been issued on 18.9.1977, 23.2.81, 18.6.82 and 7.10.1983 by the Govt. It was also brought out that circulars had been issued on 18.9.1977, 23.2.81, 18.6.82 and 7.10.1983 by the Govt. prohibiting the Shamlat Deh/Panchayat Lands in wholly or partially evacuee villages from being disposed of till the appeal titled as Gram Panchayat Jamalpur Awana v. Malwinder Singh and others pending in the Supreme Court of India was decided. The land in dispute should have not been auctioned in the presence of the above mentioned circulars. The grounds taken in suo moto reference made by the Settlement Officer Rehabilitation Department before the Chief Settlement Officer on 12.9.86 were also repeated. There was also allegation of auction not having been conducted after following due procedures and the petitioners not being suitably informed. It was further stated that as per law reported in 1991 PLJ 511 (Kanwaljit Singh v. Custodian Property, Punjab) that after 7.5.1954 no land could be declared as an evacuee property in view of the provisions of Section 7A of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. On behalf of the respondents, it was stated that village Tangori was a Muslim Village and the whole population having migrated from Pakistan, the land was declared as Custodian Property. It was further stated that in the early fifties the Urdu terminology and Urdu words were frequently used in the revenue record and as such the property was recorded as "Irazi Matruka" which meant Custodian Property but later on by mistake the Revenue Patwari who was not familiar with the Urdu Terminology wrote the entry as "Irazi Mushtarka". So this clerical mistake was cured by AC-II Grade under Rule (Para ?) 7.29 of the Punjab Land Record Manual. The auction made in favour of respondents by Tehsildar Sales Kharar and subsequently confirmed by Sales Commissioner Kharar was valid and conveyance deed was also written in favour of the respondents. On this revision petition, after recording arguments of both the parties, the then Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Sh. N.S. Rattan, gave the following brief findings contained in last para of his order dated 29.1.1996 :- "I have gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties and examined the record also. I find that the arguments advanced by the respondent are very strong and the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) is very detailed. N.S. Rattan, gave the following brief findings contained in last para of his order dated 29.1.1996 :- "I have gone through the written arguments submitted by the parties and examined the record also. I find that the arguments advanced by the respondent are very strong and the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) is very detailed. The petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and he has also failed to rebut the findings given by the Chief Sales Commissioner. The petitioner has failed to make out nay convincing case. The revision petition is dismissed." This is the order which has been assailed in M.R. 38 of 1996 under Section 15(1) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. 8. Notices of the four petitions were sent to various respondents. Shri G.S. Jeji appeared as counsel for Mohinder Kaur w/o Baljinder Singh, Karnail Singh, s/o Joginder Singh, Kamaljit Kaur w/o Kulwant Singh, Pritam Singh, s/o Gobinda, Naranjan Singh s/o Santokh Singh, Jaswinder Singh s/o Gurmail Singh, Baljit Singh s/o Gurmail Singh, Ram Rakha s/o Telu Ram. Bhag Singh s/o Sarwan Singh, Tara Singh s/o Isher Singh, Gurbax Singh s/o Hira Singh and Natha Singh s/o Nagina Singh were proceeded ex-parte. Ajmer Singh and Surjit Singh, who had purchased land from Karnail Singh s/o Ajaib Singh (M.R. 38) were reported not served on account of non-availability of their correct addresses. Bhagta who is a respondent in MR Nos. 8, 9 and 10 is already a petitioner in MR 38 of 1995-96. Gram Panchayat Tangori was also impleaded as a party by the undersigned and directed to make clear its stand. On 6.4.1999 further alienation of the disputed land was also stayed. The auction purchasers, who responded to these notices were also asked to declare alienation, if any, made by them over the passage of time. None of them provided any list of such alienations. However, munadi was made at the land in dispute in village Tangori on 8.10.1999 but no new parties joined. 9. In these four revision petitions basically the same grounds have been repeated which were agitated before the two Commissioners. The petitioners or their predecessors-in-interests claim to be in long standing possession of the disputed land stretching over 20-30 years. They stated that when the auctions were supposed to have taken place they were not informed. 9. In these four revision petitions basically the same grounds have been repeated which were agitated before the two Commissioners. The petitioners or their predecessors-in-interests claim to be in long standing possession of the disputed land stretching over 20-30 years. They stated that when the auctions were supposed to have taken place they were not informed. Rather, they allege that the proclamation was only on paper. The mutation was entered for change of the entry in the jamabandi to "Matruka" with malafide intention on an application of the Sarpanch himself who was the main beneficiary of the alleged auction dated 30.10.1984 being the husband of Kamaljit Kaur, and brother-in-law of Baljinder Kaur, auction purchasers. The mutation of the alleged auction was done in the face of a complete ban on the alienation of evacuee interest in Shamlat Lands through clear Govt. instruction issued from time to time. The mutation was entered and sanctioned on the same date. Thereafter an entry was made in the patwaris Roznamcha on 15.10.1984 regarding the intended auction and exactly 15 days thereafter on 30.10.1984, the auction was shown in record as having taken place. Even when the proceedings were started before the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners were not made a party and they came to know about the alleged auction only when steps were taken to dispossess them. Further, that some of the respondents were not even eligible for allotment, in case of Kamaljit Kaur it was alleged that her husband, the Sarpanch had sold off his land recently to show the family as eligible. 10. On behalf of Gram Panchayat Tangori, a short reply has been filed in which the grounds taken in the suo moto reference made by the Settlement Officer, Rehabilitation Deptt. against the auctions made in favour of 15 auction purchasers have been repeated. It has also been reiterated that the property was Shamlat in nature and after the migration of Muslims the same would remain as Shamlat and it cannot be transferred to the Custodian deptt. Rather it would belong to the Panchayat as per latest judgment of the Apex Court in Malwinder Singh v. Gram Panchayat Jamalpur Awana. Thus an irregularity was committed when its ownership was changed from "Arazi Mushtarka" to "Arazi Matruka" through mutation No. 934. 11. On behalf of the respondents, it has been basically stated that village Tangori was a village comprised wholly of Muslims. Thus an irregularity was committed when its ownership was changed from "Arazi Mushtarka" to "Arazi Matruka" through mutation No. 934. 11. On behalf of the respondents, it has been basically stated that village Tangori was a village comprised wholly of Muslims. The Muslim population migrated to Pakistan in 1947 and thereafter entire village became Custodian property and it was entered as Arazi Matruka in the revenue record. Later on due to some pen error the said land was made "mushtarka" instead of "matruka" by some ignorant revenue official. This wrong entry was corrected by Tehsildar Sales using his powers under para 7.29 of the Punjab Land Records Manual being a clerical error. As a result of this correction, the land become Custodian property under the Punjab Package Deal Properties Act and the same was purchased by the auction purchasers. This sale was confirmed by the Sales Commissioner-cum-SDO (Civil) Kharar vide his order dated 17.12.1984. It was much later that a suo moto reference under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties Act was received from the Rehabilitation Deptt. by the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar on 12.9.1986 for setting aside the auctions made by the Tehsildar. It has also been stated that the sales of such lands had been regularised through an amendment in the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 as notified by the Punjab Govt. on 8.5.1995 vide Act 8 of 1995. As per provisions of this Act/amendment, shamlat land transferred to any person by sale or by any other means before 9.7.1985 would be protected. It has been stated that the auction purchasers had deposited the entire amount of the auction money in some cases and mutations also stood sanctioned in the name of various auction purchasers. The Ld. counsel for the respondents has made a mention of mutations Nos. 1102, 1103, 1104 and 1105 which were reportedly reflected in the jamabandis for the years 1988-89 and 1993-94. It has also been stated that as per Punjab Package Deal Properties Rules, any person desirous to get the sale cancelled, has to move the Sales Commissioner within a period of ten days from the date of auction but here the case was moved by the Rehabilitation Deptt. in 1986 and none of the petitioners had filed any application challenging the auction conducted on 30.10.1984. The respondents allege that Sant Ram and Naranjan Singh predecessors-in-interest of Chanan Masih etc. in 1986 and none of the petitioners had filed any application challenging the auction conducted on 30.10.1984. The respondents allege that Sant Ram and Naranjan Singh predecessors-in-interest of Chanan Masih etc. and Pal Singh etc., respectively, were not even eligible for any allotment on the relevant date as each had 70 kanal land in his name and similar Raunki, father of Charan Dass etc. had 71 kanal land in his name. It has also been stated that Charan Dass had filed a civil suit before the Sub- Judge Ist Class, Kharar and the same had been dismissed on 14.8.1989. The auction was perfectly genuine and had been duly reflected in the "roznamcha waqiati" of the patwari through rapt No. 57. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner and the Commissioner had decided the matter in favour of the respondents on merits. Belatedly all the respondents/their LRs have taken the plea that the auction was an open auction and not a restricted auction probably to project that there were no restrictions attached to its alienation as that is one of the charges against some of the auction purchasers. 12. I have heard the parties to the dispute and their counsels, and have also perused the very voluminous record received from the lower courts; and have come to the conclusion that the orders of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Sales Commissioner, Ropar and the two Commissioners, defending mutation No. 934 and the auction, were based on erroneous assumptions, and an unwillingness and failure to peruse the revenue record. The defiance of Govt. orders on the part of the then Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer (Sales) and the S.D.O.(C)-cum-Sales Commissioner is blatant and deliberate and confirms the belief that the auctions were merely paper exercise intended to favour a chosen few. These actions cannot be endorsed with the complacency shown by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner. The following facts will make this point clear :- (1) The old record shows that the land which was auctioned was entered at the time of Partition of the Country as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat, and continued to figure as such till 12.10.84. The ownership entries in the jamabandis prepared from time to time nowhere use the term "matruka" or "mushtarka". The ownership entries in the jamabandis prepared from time to time nowhere use the term "matruka" or "mushtarka". Since the ownership in Cloumn 4 of the jamabandi continued to show the ownership as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat, there was no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner to observe in his order that "a wrong entry was made in the column of ownership of the jamabandis for the years 1958-59, 1963-64, 1968-69, 1973-74, 1978-79, 1983-84 as subsequently copied out by the halqa patwari". He evidently chose to rely on the wrong arguments presented by the respondents instead of taking the trouble of looking at the Revenue record. Even on behalf of the Gram Panchayat a reply has been filed without looking at the revenue record. (2) It is admitted by both the parties that Tangori was a village totally inhabited by the Muslims who migrated to Pakistan on the Partition of the Country. Consequently, the disputed land being Shamlat Deh did not represent evacuee land left behind by any individual Muslim land owner but represented the evacuee interest in Shamlat Deh. As already indicated the land continued to be shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat in the jamabandis till 12.10.84. There was no immediate provocation for change in its ownership to Central Govt. through mutation No. 934 on 12.10.84 and that too on an application of the village Sarpanch Kulwant Singh. There was no clerical mistake in copying out the jamabandis. Therefore there was no requirement of any "correction" through a mutation. There was also no occasion for the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner as head of the district revenue and general administration to endorse the wrong sanctioning of mutation No. 934 on grounds that the aggrieved party did not file an appeal against it. The Deputy Commissioner should have reviewed the mutation as soon as it came to his notice. (3) Whenever large chunks of evacuee properties are to be disposed of the decision is taken at the Govt. level to do so. It is also decided at Govt. level whether such land is to be disposed of by auction or on the basis of possession. Such a decision is followed by a Press Note i.e. information to the General public through newspapers. No such press note preceded the present auctions. On the contrary, there was a set of instructions issued by the Govt. level whether such land is to be disposed of by auction or on the basis of possession. Such a decision is followed by a Press Note i.e. information to the General public through newspapers. No such press note preceded the present auctions. On the contrary, there was a set of instructions issued by the Govt. barring alienation of evacuee share in shamlat lands till the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gram Panchayat Jamalpur Awana v. Malwinder Singh and others. The counsel for the petitioner Bhagta has correctly made a mention of the following circulars :- (i) R 1(115) Part-II/14064/159, dated 12.9.77; (ii) R 1(115) Part-II/7378-85, dated 18.6.82; (iii) R 1(115) Part-II/G-7/18429-40, dated 7.10.83. (4) Since the petitioners have alleged fraud and argued that auctions took place only on paper, the arguments of the respondents that the auctions should have been challenged at the appropriate time as required under Rule 6 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules becomes irrelevant if the allegation is found to be correct. As already mentioned mutation No. 934 was entered in respect of 917K-10M of land on 12.10.84. This was done on an application of no other person than the Sarpanch himself. This mutation changed the entries in the ownership column from "Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat" to "Kendriya Sarkar Arazi Matruka" the same day. The entries in cultivation column was shown changed from "Kasht Ghair Maurusian Badastur" to "Maqbuza Kendriya Sarkar Wa Ghair Maurusian Badastur". The mutation of this large tract of land was entered and sanctioned not in the village Tangori, but sitting at Kharar. The entries were made by Prem Sagar Patwari and checked by Nar Singh Gidawar. Three days later i.e. on 15.10.84 an entry was shown to have been made in the patwaris roznamcha showing a proclamation having been made regarding the impending auction on 30.10.84, and promptly on 30.10.84 the auction was recorded to have taken place. One of the major beneficiaries of this largesse was Kulwant Singh Sarpanch (then alive) whose wife Kamaljit Kaur, and whose brothers wife Mohinder Kaur were shown as successful auction purchasers, so also was Ram Rakha son of Telu, the village Chowkidar who made the proclamation. One of the major beneficiaries of this largesse was Kulwant Singh Sarpanch (then alive) whose wife Kamaljit Kaur, and whose brothers wife Mohinder Kaur were shown as successful auction purchasers, so also was Ram Rakha son of Telu, the village Chowkidar who made the proclamation. (5) If the auction files are studied carefully and list of participants compared with list of successful bidders it would be found that a total of 19 persons participated in all the 15 auctions put together. Their presence is certified by Kuldip Singh, Lambardar of Darari (and not Tangori !) and, of course, Kulwant Singh Sarpanch of Tangori ! This list includes the relatives of the successful bidders e.g. Gurmail Singh father of Jaswinder Singh, Baljit Singh and Swaran Singh father of Bhag Singh. The file relating to auction in favour of Pritam Singh son of Gobinda which has been prepared as a master file for all these auctions does not mark the presence of Tara Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Gurnam Singh and Gurbax Singh though they have been shown as successful bidders. Interestingly Bhag Singh and Tara Singh never presented themselves in the present proceedings, nor were their files submitted by the field authorities. As already mentioned in the opening paras, munadi on the disputed land had to be ordered ultimately to ensure a public notice to all concerned. (6) The auction files also show that tremendous workload was packed into a single day i.e. 30.10.84. All jamabandi copes attached to the auction files were shown prepared on the date of auction, all Shajra Aks were also prepared on 30.10.84, and in each case the Patwari Prem Sagar promptly certified that there was no tree on the land nor any path connecting the said taks. A persual of the latha shows that a number of these taks were wrongly shown as inaccessible to enable their sale in restricted auction at concessional rates. Even if the latha is not referred to, the configuration of some of the taks betrays the fact that the certificate of the Patwari is incorrect. Some of the certificates for Scheduled Caste and Head of the family were also prepared on the same day. With all this activity going on the auction was successfully completed by the Tensildar sitting in village Darari, instead of in village Tangori ! Some of the certificates for Scheduled Caste and Head of the family were also prepared on the same day. With all this activity going on the auction was successfully completed by the Tensildar sitting in village Darari, instead of in village Tangori ! (7) The auction money was not deposited on 30.10.84 or soon thereafter but on 6.12.84/7.12.84 i.e. 35/36 days late. The files were not put for cancellation of the sales during the intervening period. The delay was passed over as callousness on the part of the Kanungo. Significantly, 7.12.84 was also the date on which the Tehsildar thought it fit to inform the Sales Commissioner about a certain letter No. 2(505)/13126-1821/G-5, dated 12.11.1984 vide which the Rehabilitation Department had suspended the disposal of all surplus rural evacuee lands by open/restricted as the policy with regard to transfer of rural evacuee agricultural lands was under active consideration of the Govt. Nevertheless, the Tehsildar sought confirmation of the sales which was obligingly allowed through an elaborated hand written note dated 17.12.84 on the auction file of Pritam Singh. (8) When the Tehsildar returned this and other auction files on 16.1.85 with the observation that the Sales Commissioner should append his orders on each of the 15 files, the Sales Commissioner pointed out the various shortcomings found in these auction files through an undated note at page 39/40, 40/41. He pointed out that in file Nos. 318, 311, 300 and 314 the Shajra Aks of the auctioned land were missing, nor was there any report from the Kanungo and Tehsildar indicating how the polots had been carved out. Also, that there was no certificate stating that there was no tree or path to the disputed land. Through this note the Tehsildar was also told to enter the reserve price of each plot. The SDO(C) even wrote to say - ("It is no use sending incomplete files !"). Since all the formalities were completed much later than the auction and after the belated deposit of the money in the treasury it lends credence to the allegation of the petitioners that no auction actually took place and the record was created subsequently, this included deposit of hid money. Since all the formalities were completed much later than the auction and after the belated deposit of the money in the treasury it lends credence to the allegation of the petitioners that no auction actually took place and the record was created subsequently, this included deposit of hid money. It was not be out of context here to mention that all the auction files carry the following remarks recorded by Tehsildar while accepting the bid :- These remarks are unusual and do not depict a normal situation. The plea that Govt. letter dated 12.11.84 was received well after the date of auction also does not cut ice as a ban on alienation of evacuees share in shamlat lands had been imposed by the Govt. much earlier to this. (9) That the auction was a paper exercise and intended to benefit a chosen few is further evident from the fact that even the basic eligibility of successful bidders was not gone into. The certificates relating to the bidders being members of the Schedule Castes were obtained in some cases later than the date of auction. In other cases, they were issued by none other than the SDO(C) subsequent to the date of auction. Kamaljit Kaur wife of Sarpanch Kulwant Singh (then alive) has given a certificate that she is the head of the family. The certificate has been issued by none other than her own husband Sh. Kulwant Singh. Same is the position regarding Smt. Mohinder Kaur wife of Baljinder Singh, brother of Sarpanch Kulwant Singh. Another successful bidder is Ram Rakha, village Chowkidar who made the alleged "munadi" regarding the said auction. Ram Rakha was in unauthorised possession of 93 kanals of land and he was content to be allotted only 17K 15M land for Rs. 4350/- which he is subsequently alleged to have sold to Ajmer Singh son of Lal Singh Kanungo who was reportedly in active service at that time and Sant Singh son of Piara Singh. (10) A very alarming fact which has been revealed during the proceedings and lends credence to the allegation that the auction was a sham exercise and intended to favour a chosen few is that most of the successful auction purchasers had given their Power of Attorneys in favour of some non- agriculturists and ineligible categories even prior to the date of auction. Copies of four such Power of Attorney have been brought on record. All these attorneys are dated 19.10.1984 and have been got registered before none other than the Tehsildar himself. For example, Naranjan Singh son of Santokh Singh executed a Power of Attorney on 19.10.1984 in favour of Dr. H.R. Singla of Ropar alleged to be close friend of a senior revenue functionary involved in the auction. It is alleged that if was Dr. Singla who asked for a warrant of possession on 14.3.1989. Similarly, Karnail Singh son of Joginder Singh executed a Power of Attorney on 19.12.1984 in favour of Ajmer Singh son of Lal Singh a resident of Khanpur in Kharar Tehsil who it is alleged was a serving Kanungo in the Revenue department. Natha Singh son of Nagina Singh had handed over the Power of Attorney dated 19.10.84 to Pargat Ram of village Kala, Distt. Jalandhar who was allegedly a close relative of another senior officer involved in decision making, Pritam Singh son of Joginder Singh executed a Power of Attorney dated 19.10.1984 in favour of Amar Kaur wife of Babu Singh who was a resident of Chandigarh. In some of these cases the pages relating to handing over of possession are unnumbered and fresh and appear replaced/tampered with. 13. In view of the above discussion it is established that there was open and deliberate defiance of Govt. instructions in relation to disposal of evacuee share in shamlat lands. Sanction of mutation No. 934 was an act of calculated mischief rather than an innocent correction of a mistake in revenue record. The nomenclature of the land was deliberately changed to enable its sale because land shown as shamlat could not be sold off. And when Govt. letter dated 12.11.84 suspended the disposal of other evacuee property through auction the money was hurriedly deposited in the treasury and sale confirmed on grounds that the auction had already taken place. The Deputy Commissioner has failed in his duty by not examining the revenue record and endorsing non- existent entries at the behest of the respondents. The orders of the Commissioner are sketchy and non-speaking and do not even narrate the facts correctly. Surprisingly, the Panchayat remained a passive spectator not only in 1984 when Kulwant Singh Sarpanch was actively involved as an interested party but even much later. The orders of the Commissioner are sketchy and non-speaking and do not even narrate the facts correctly. Surprisingly, the Panchayat remained a passive spectator not only in 1984 when Kulwant Singh Sarpanch was actively involved as an interested party but even much later. Even now when affidavits have been filed by the petitioners incriminating the auction purchasers and alleging fraudulent and benami transactions the Panchayat has not chosen to make any comments. 14. In view of this position the auction purchasers are not entitled to the protection of amendment introduced by Act 8 of 1995, and these auctions are accordingly set aside. It is further held that mutation No. 934 was uncalled for and requires to be cancelled. However, since the total area involved in this mutation is much more (917K-10M) than the area which is the subject- matter of discussion (376K-5M) it is quite possible that there might be some people who are affected by an order in relation to such cancellation. The Deputy Commissioner may therefore immediately proceed at his own level to give notice, whether public or individual, to the parties and make the necessary correction thereafter. No relief can, however, be granted to the petitioners in the form of allotment of disputed land as evacuee share in shamlat deh cannot be transferred in their favour in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited as Gram Panchayat Jamalpur Awana v. Malwinder Singh and others. Therefore, no discussion on their eligibility/eligibility of their predecessors-in-interest is being attempted in this order. Announced in open Court. However, order be also communicated to the parties. Order accordingly.