JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J.:- This petition has been filed for challenging orders Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7 dated 30.3.1983, 12.3.84 and 29.9.87 respectively, whereby the auction of a plot of land measuring 124 square yards odd, comprised in Khasra No.188. min., situated in village Tikhowal Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, in favour of respondent No.3 was upheld. 2. The petitioner alleges that he had been in possession and is residing in the disputed property since 1969 and that he had moved an application to respondent No.2 for transfer of the property in his favour on the basis of his possession. Instead of allowing the application, the respondent No.2 ordered the auction of the property for 31.10.1979. It is alleged that this order was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner and, on 23.10.1979 the following order was passed:- “The appellant has deposited Rs.200/- as D/Charges on demand. It is not clear as to why the house built by him on which D/charges have been paid has been scheduled for auction. The appellant is a Harijan and has a prima facie case for the transfer of the plot under dispute. Status quo be maintained till decision the appeal.” It is further alleged that despite the above mentioned order the property had been put to auction on 31.10.1979. The petitioner participated in the said auction and gave the highest bid of Rs.3150/- against the reserved price of Rs.3112/- and deposited 20% thereof then and there. After the auction the petitioner moved an application before the Settlement Commissioner protesting the auction and claiming that the property should have been transferred to him on the basis of his possession. This application of the petitioner was rejected and the property directed to be reauctioned by an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 3.6.1981. 3. In the second auction held on 30.6.82 the respondent No.3 gave the highest bid of Rs.37,200/-. The petitioner filed objections and an appeal, both dated 13.7.82, before the Settlement Commissioner. This appeal was rejected by order dated 30.3.1983 and a revision against the said order was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by order dated 12.3.1984. 3. In the second auction held on 30.6.82 the respondent No.3 gave the highest bid of Rs.37,200/-. The petitioner filed objections and an appeal, both dated 13.7.82, before the Settlement Commissioner. This appeal was rejected by order dated 30.3.1983 and a revision against the said order was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by order dated 12.3.1984. The petitioner then approached the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) with a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which was rejected with the following observations:- “I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and have also gone through the record. The record shows that the petitioner applied for the transfer of the property in dispute for the first time on the 30th October, 1979. He has not been able to establish that any application had been submitted by him before the prescribed date of 31st December 1977. The fact that he participated in the first auction on the 13th October,1979 and also paid damage charges for the use and occupation of the property after the date of auction confirms that no application had been made before the target date. Further, having once participated in the auction proceedings, the petitioner could not plead that the auction in his favour should be set aside and the property transferred to him on the basis of possession and construction. His request was rightly declined by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 3rd June, 1981. As no challenge to the said order was made, it attained finality. Besides, as per provision of Rule 90(10) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the Settlement Commissioner was within his discretion not to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. I am also satisfied that the sale in favour of respondent No.3 does not suffer from any irregularity. The bid sheet shows that seven persons offered bids and as many as 150/200 persons were present at the spot. The fact that area measuring 124 sq. yards 4 sq. feet which fetched Rs.3150/­ only, in the earlier auction had been sold in the subsequent auction for Rs.37,200/- itself goes to show that the sale was hotly contested. Moreover the objection of the petitioner against the subsequent sale being time barred had rightly been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner. The fact that area measuring 124 sq. yards 4 sq. feet which fetched Rs.3150/­ only, in the earlier auction had been sold in the subsequent auction for Rs.37,200/- itself goes to show that the sale was hotly contested. Moreover the objection of the petitioner against the subsequent sale being time barred had rightly been rejected by the Settlement Commissioner. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner has not claim on the property in dispute. He can, however, claim Rs. 4900/- deposited by respondent No.3 in the Government Treasury towards cost of the superstructure unauthorisedly raised by the petitioner. For the reasons given above, the petition of the petitioner, which is devoid of any merit, is dismissed.” 4. It was further averred that during the pendency of the matter before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), a Civil Suit filed by the proprietary body of village Tikhowal Mukerian against the State of Punjab, the Union of India and 11 alienees therefrom was decreed by judgment and decree dated 7.3.86 whereby a declaration was issued that land measuring 205 Kanals and 13 Marlas bearing Khasra Number 188 min. situated in village Tikhowal Mukerian was the property of the proprietary body and that the sales made in favour of the 11 alienees by the Union of India were invalid and would not affect the rights of the proprietary body. It is alleged that this judgment was brought to the notice of the Financial Commissioner which has not been dealt with in his order dated 29.9.87. 5. Mr. C.B.Goel appearing for the petitioner has argued that firstly his application for transfer of the property on the basis of the possession was wrongly rejected and secondly that the judgment in the civil suit mentioned above was a judgment in rem and consequently neither the Union of India nor the State of Punjab had any right, title or interest in the said land and, therefore, the auction in favour of respondent No.3 could not pass any title in his favour, his vendor not being, the owner thereof. 6. On the other hand it is the contention of Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that concededly the petitioner never challenged the order dated 3.6.81 whereby his application for transferring the land on the basis of his possession was rejected and the auction in his favour was set aside. 6. On the other hand it is the contention of Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 that concededly the petitioner never challenged the order dated 3.6.81 whereby his application for transferring the land on the basis of his possession was rejected and the auction in his favour was set aside. Having allowed this order to become final, the petitioner did not have the locus standi to challenge the auction in favour of respondent No.3. As regards the civil suit, it is his contention that the auction in his favour was confirmed before the filing of the civil suit. The proprietary body (or representatives thereof) challenged 11 specific alienations but did not challenge the one in favour of respondent No.3. Thus, qua his sale no further cause of auction could accrue even to the said plaintiffs in view of the doctrine of constructive res judicata (Section 11, Explanation (iv) read with Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.). He adds that if the said plaintiffs were debarred from challenging the sale in favour of respondent No.3, surely the petitioner, whose possession is clearly unauthorised could not be heard to challenge the said transaction. He further contends that even if it is accepted that the petitioner had the locus standi to file objections against the auction in favour of respondent No.3, the said objections having been filed beyond the period prescribed in Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 would be barred by limitation and thus this was a case where neither the owner (in this case the proprietary body) nor the petitioner could challenge the auction made in favour of his client. 7. I find force in the arguments of Mr.Chopra. Undoubtedly by allowing the order dated 3.6.81 to become final, the petitioner has lost any right that he may have had to claim the transfer of the property on the basis of his possession or on the basis of the auction in which he had bid an amount of Rs.3150/-. Having lost that right the only claim of the petitioner was that of an unauthorised occupant and it is with reference to that status that this entire petition has to be examined. Having lost that right the only claim of the petitioner was that of an unauthorised occupant and it is with reference to that status that this entire petition has to be examined. Of course it may be noticed in passing that on facts, it has been held concurrently by all the authorities below that the petitioner had not even applied for transfer on the basis of possession by the last date prescribed therefor. However, as noticed above, to my mind the real determinant was the action of the petitioner in allowing the order dated 3.6.81 to become final and not the finding of fact about his ineligibility on the basis of delay in applying. Viewed from this angle it would be difficult to hold that a rank trespasser could challenge the auction made in favour of the respondent No.3. An auction such as this can be challenged only by a person who may have a competing claim and not by a person like the petitioner who has lost what ever vestigial right he may have had in the property originally. 8. Even the judgment of the Civil Court would not, in my opinion, be of much avail to the petitioner. In the first place it would only be a real owner who would have the right to protest against a sale made by a person who had no right, title or interest in the property. In the present case even such real owner, may not have had this right since the sale in favour of respondent No.3 had taken place before the filing of the Civil Suit and the plaintiffs while challenging the sales made in favour of other persons did not challenge this sale. Mr. C.B. Goel relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nanu Khan and others v. M/s Oriental Spun Pipes Ltd., [2008(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2026] : reported as 2008 (3) PLR 404, to canvass the proposition that a person who was not the owner could not convey any title in favour of a vendee. The proposition as stated is unexceptionable. However, it would be noticed that in the cited case this proposition was stated at the instance of the real owner and not a rank stronger like the petitioner in the present case. In my opinion this is the definitive distinguishing feature of the said case. The proposition as stated is unexceptionable. However, it would be noticed that in the cited case this proposition was stated at the instance of the real owner and not a rank stronger like the petitioner in the present case. In my opinion this is the definitive distinguishing feature of the said case. Thus, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. ----------------