Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 152 (PNJ)

Dalip Singh v. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division

2003-01-28

BHAGAT SINGH

body2003
ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2000 and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in Review application by the Ld. Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Since the facts are given in detail in the impugned order, I need not recount them. 2. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the land measuring 32K 14M situated in the revenue estate of Chak Yakub, Tehsil Gurdaspur was sold to Des Raj on 6.4.1995 in open auction for Rs. 84,000/-. The petitioner filed an appeal on the ground of defective proclamation regarding auction before Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur which was dismissed on 10.1.1990. But the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur in para 5 of his order dated 21.5.1997, set aside the auction clearly mentioning the "no step to make the Munadi in the village about auction to be held on 6.4.95 has been made". The printed notice of proclamation which was alleged to have been issued i for 7.4.1995 but the date was subsequently changed to 6.4.1995. In view of this situation, the auction was held in a fraudulent manner in connivance with Des Raj. Accordingly, the Chief Sales Commissioner rightly accepted the appeal vide his order dated 21.5.1997 and directed the Tehsildar to re-auction the land after making a fresh and adequate proclamation/publicity in accordance with law. 3. While filing a revision petition before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Des Raj played a fraud on the Court and made some other person appear as the petitioner and the Wakalatnama which is on record is not bearing the thumb impression of the petitioner. The Petitioner was nowhere given any opportunity to defend himself and become aware of the order only when the officials came to execute the order and take possession of the suit land from the petitioner. 4. The petitioner approached the Honble High Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 14595 of 2000 which was disposed of on 31.10.2000 advising him to file a petition before the Commissioner for setting aside the so called ex parte order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application which was decided on 24.1.2001 but the order shows that the Commissioner has not at all considered the grounds taken by the petitioner. Again the petitioner had to file CWP No. 5869 of 2002 which was dismissed as withdrawn by Honble High Court on 21.8.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application which was decided on 24.1.2001 but the order shows that the Commissioner has not at all considered the grounds taken by the petitioner. Again the petitioner had to file CWP No. 5869 of 2002 which was dismissed as withdrawn by Honble High Court on 21.8.2002. It further directed him to approach the court of Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab. The counsel urged to accept the revision petition, set aside the orders 10.4.2000 and 24.1.2001 of the Commissioner Jalandhar Division and to uphold the order dated 21.5.97 of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur in the interest of justice. 5. Refuting the arguments, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession. The advocate for the applicant was present when both the orders dated 30.4.2000 and dated 24.1.2001 were passed by the Commissioner. Secondly, no objection against the auction was filed by the petitioner under Rule 6(a) within ten days. The procedure for sale of land or property by auction has been given in detail in Rule 6 and there is no violation of the rules. The auction was earlier fixed for 29.3.1995 and was postponed to 6.4.1995 at the request of people of the village. The Tehsildar recommended this postponement and the same was countersigned by the Nambardar and Sarpanch of the village. Thirdly, the petitioner made application for allotment on the basis of possession on 8.9.1995 i.e. much after the date of auction i.e. 6.4.1995. Therefore his belated application does not effect the auction any way as per ruling 1985 PLJ 117 (B). The petitioner is interested to prolong the case. In para 5 of the order dated 24.1.2001, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has clearly mentioned that the counsel of Dalip Singh, applicant could not rebut any of the observations made in the order dated 30.4.2000, which are as under :- a) There was no irregularity in the proclamation. Observations of Chief Sales Commissioner are based on conjecture. b) As a matter of fact, no allegation was ever made by the respondent regarding any irregularity or manipulation in the proclamation for auction. c) As per the High Court Ruling irregularities in proclamation can be considered only upto the stage of confirmation of an auction. That is why a provision of filing objections within 10 days has been made in the rules. c) As per the High Court Ruling irregularities in proclamation can be considered only upto the stage of confirmation of an auction. That is why a provision of filing objections within 10 days has been made in the rules. d) The applicant did not file appeal against the order dated 22.11.1996 of Tehsildar rejecting respondents application for allotment on the basis of possession due to lack of his continuous possession with effect from the prescribed crop. He had no further case. e) The impugned order is set aside and the auction is upheld. Police held should be provided by provoking provisions under the Package Deal Act to deliver the possession to the petitioner. 6. The counsel for the respondent urged that the Commissioner has already passed detailed and reasoned orders and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the arguments propounded by Ld. Counsel and have gone through the relevant record. The auction was earlier fixed for 29.3.1995 and it was postponed to 6.4.1995 at the request of the people of village and on recommendation of the Tehsildar, which was countersigned by the Lambardar and the Sarpanch of the village. I am inclined to agree with the Commissioner and the counsel for respondent and conclude that the order of Commissioner dated 24.1.2001, particularly, is well reasoned and a speaking order wherein he has made it clear that the Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to rebut any observation made in the earlier order dated 30.4.2000 against his claim. The petitioner has neither raised any objection under Rule 6(a) regarding auction within ten days nor he has pointed out any irregularity in the proclamation for auction. As per ruling of Punjab and Haryana High Court 1996(2)-RRR-246 confirmed sale cannot be set aside on the ground of irregularity in proclamation of sale. In this case auction was confirmed on 15.6.95 and it was challenged on 30.10.95 by the petitioner before Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur who dismissed the appeal on 10.4.96. His application dated 8.9.1995 for the transfer of land on the basis of continued possession has already been rejected by the Tehsildar vide his order dated 22.11.1996. Thus, there is no merits in the revision petition to justify my interference. Under these circumstances, this revision fails and is dismissed. Announced. Revision dismissed.