ORDER Bhagat Singh, FC. - These two connected revision petitions under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, are directed against the order dated 28.11.2001 of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. As the issues in both cases are the same these revision petitions are being disposed of by this single order a copy of which be placed on each file. 2. The impugned order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar contains detailed facts of the case which need not be repeated. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Tehsildar (Sales), Kapurthala, vide his order dated 30.9.1991, transferred land measuring 42 kanals in village Booh to the petitioners in two equal shares on the basis of their possession with effect from Kharif, 1984. The transfers were confirmed by the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 28.7.1992 and they deposited the entire amount of the land. In para 9 of his order, the Commissioner has held that "the possession has been shown as of "Puran Singh Gair Marusee-Abal-Rachhpal Singh, Jagtar Singh Gair Marusee Doim". This means that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the land. The respondent No. 4, Puran Singh claims that he purchased the land in restricted auction held on 21.1.1976 but did not pay the remaining instalments as he has been living in Dubai for the last more than 18 years. The applications of respondent No. 4 for the payment of instalments were not within limitation. 4. The counsel further contended that the Commissioner has committed grave illegality in treating the case under Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The disputed land was purchased by Puran Singh on 21.1.1976 whereas the Act received the assent of President of India on 9th April, 1976. Therefore, auction was conducted under Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder. Rule 87 deals with public auction. The disputed land was purchased by Puran Singh on 21.1.1976 whereas the Act received the assent of President of India on 9th April, 1976. Therefore, auction was conducted under Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder. Rule 87 deals with public auction. Rule 90(14) is relevant in the present case which states that "if auction purchaser does not deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified in sub-rule (11).....the initial deposit made by he auction purchaser in sub- rule (8) shall be liable to forfeiture and he shall not have any claim to the property." The counsel urged that as the petitioners are the bona fide purchasers, the revision petition be accepted, the order of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division be set aside and order of Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala dated 24.5.2000 be restored. 5. The counsel for the respondent No. 4 rebutted the above arguments and averred that the land in dispute was sold to Puran Singh s/o Mehnga Singh for Rs. 10,500/- in restricted auction held on 21.1.1976. He deposited Rs. 525/- and the sale was confirmed by the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 2.5.1977. The restricted auction/sale was neither challenged for cancelled till date and is, thus, final. The Ld. Commissioner, in paras 6, 7 & 8 of his order dated 28.11.2001, has rightly observed that under Rule 6(6)(xiii) of Punjab Package Deal Properties Rules, 1976, in case of default of payment, the Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales) shall recover the amount as arrear of land revenue. Even under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, the amount due could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The counsel cited ruling 1955-PLJ-Page 411 whereby the Honble High Court held that under Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954, for non-payment of mortgage money, allotment made in favour of displaced person cannot be cancelled. 6. The counsel averred further that it appears that the certain vital facts were concealed from the Tehsildar when he passed his order dated 30.9.1991. In para 9 of his order, the Commissioner has held that possession since Kharif, 1984, of the petitioners has not been proved as Rachhpal Singh etc. were cultivating the land under Puran Singh and could not be termed as occupants of Central Govt. land. In para 9 of his order, the Commissioner has held that possession since Kharif, 1984, of the petitioners has not been proved as Rachhpal Singh etc. were cultivating the land under Puran Singh and could not be termed as occupants of Central Govt. land. The Tehsildar (M)-cum-(S), Kapurthala wrongly mentioned in his order dated 30.9.1991 that this land was not allotted earlier whereas the entries of jamabandis pertaining to the year 1982-83 and 1987-88 are in the favour of respondent No. 4. The physical possession of land was delivered to the respondent by the Tehsildar (S) vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 57 dated 11.10.1977 & with the permission of Tehsildar (S) Kapurthala, an amount of Rs. 511/- was deposited in Distt. Treasury on 11.7.1985. On 1.4.1999 when he applied for grant of permission again to deposit the outstanding amount, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala forwarded the application to Tehsildar (S) for report but from his office the respondent came to know that the entire area had been transferred to the petitioners vide ex-parte orders dated 30.9.1991. The counsel urged that the petitioners have got this land transferred by fraud, and concealment of material facts regarding previous auction. Under these circumstances, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Sh. Balbir Singh, Senior State Counsel submitted that the petitioners themselves have filed the revision petitions under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deals Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The restricted auction sale was confirmed on 2.5.1978 after the enforcement of said Act. The petitioner has taken a new ground in the revision that auction was held under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 and not in the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 which is liable to be rejected at the revisional stage. 8. Relying the above arguments, the counsel for the petitioners averred that the auction was held under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954 & respondent No. 4 was not a displaced person. So the Commissioner decided this case under a wrong Act. As the petitioners were occupants of the Central Govt. Land they were eligible for its transfer under the policy of the Punjab Govt. 9. I have considered the arguments propounded by Ld. counsel and have gone through the relevant record. I conclude that the order of ld. Commissioner dated 28.11.2001 is very well reasoned, and elaborate. As the petitioners were occupants of the Central Govt. Land they were eligible for its transfer under the policy of the Punjab Govt. 9. I have considered the arguments propounded by Ld. counsel and have gone through the relevant record. I conclude that the order of ld. Commissioner dated 28.11.2001 is very well reasoned, and elaborate. The facts of this case are not disputed and the restricted auction held on 21.6.1976 was neither cancelled nor could it be cancelled for failure to deposit the instalments which were liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Rule 6(6)(xiii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 and under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. I rely on rulings 1994(1) RLR-326 and 1973-RLR-580 of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court according which a sale cannot be cancelled on the ground of non-payment of outstanding dues when there is statutory provision for the recovery of such price. 10. In the jamabandi for the year 1982-83 and 1987-88 the possession has been shown to be that of "Puran Singh Gair Marusee-Abal, Rachhpal Singh Jagtar Singh Gair Marusee-Doim". This means that the petitions were in cultivating possession of the land under Puran Singh and that their cultivating possession is not proved since Kharif 1984. The Commissioner has rightly concluded that the land in dispute was not available for the transfer to the petitioner on 30.9.1991. The petitioner applied for the transfer of said land by concealing the facts this land was sold in restricted auction earlier. Under these circumstances the Sale in favour of the petitioners is dubious and the orders dated 30.9.1991 of the Tehsildar and order dated 28.7.1982 of the Sales Commissioner were correctly set aside. 11. So far as the plea that the commissioner has committed an illegality in treating the case under Punjab Package Deals Properties Act 1976 when this restricted auction was held on 21.1.1976 under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Rules 1955 is concerned, I am inclined to agree with the State Counsel that no new ground is maintainable at the stage of revision before this court as this plea was not taken by the petitioners before the lower courts earlier. 12. 12. In the light of observations, I conclude that there is no merit in the petitioners case and no irregularity in the impugned order has been proved to justify and interference in revision. Under these circumstances, the revision fails and dismissed. Announced. Revision dismissed.