JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.:-This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.1767 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), 1629 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and a nother), 3850 of 1981 (Sukhinder Pal Singh and others Vs. State o f Punjab and another) , 3851 of 1981 (Sukhinder Pal Singh and o thers Vs. State of Punjab and another), 3852 of 1981 (Thakar S ingh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), 3853 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another), 3854 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and a nother), 3858 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others Vs. State of P unjab and another), and 3859 of 1981 (Thakar Singh and others V s. State of Punjab and another). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.1767 of 1981. 2. The challenge in the writ petition is to an order passed by Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, whereby proceedings under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Package Act”) were taken on a reference from Punjab Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar. The Chief Sales Commissioner ultimately set-aside the auction sales in favour of the petitioners, which had been confirmed long ago. This order has been challenged through the present writ petitions on various grounds, including the one that the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, would not have any jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 10 of the Package Act. 3. Briefly, recapitulating, the Rehabilitation Department of Punjab had purchased surplus rural evacuee agricultural lands under the Package Deal of 1961 from the Central Government. This land commonly known as Package Deal Properties. These lands were subsequently disposed of by the Government of Punjab under the 1962 Rules. Subsequently, Government of Punjab ordered an enquiry by a Committee known as “Harchand Singh Committee’ to look into the cases of alleged land grabbing. It came to light that the petitioners had purchased surplus rural evacuee agricultural land situated in village Shahbazpur, Hadbast No.36, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The land was statedly purchased in an open auction on 31.8.1963, which was conducted by Tehsildar (Sales). The highest bid was of Rs.4250/-, which was offered by Thakar Singh (petitioner) on his behalf as also on behalf of other petitioners. The land was statedly purchased in an open auction on 31.8.1963, which was conducted by Tehsildar (Sales). The highest bid was of Rs.4250/-, which was offered by Thakar Singh (petitioner) on his behalf as also on behalf of other petitioners. The sale was confirmed by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 16.9.1963 and the sale deed in favour of the respondents was issued on 14.11.1963. The Harchand Singh Committee scrutinized the sale and found that it was suffering from various infirmities, improprieties relating to the notice of proclamation issued by Tehsildar (Sales), Jagraon and also with regard to the manner of bidding by the auction purchasers. Reference from Rehabilitation Department showed that there was a prima-facie case to examine the illegalities and improprieties of the order passed by Tehsildar (Sales), confirming the sale. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioners on 13.5.1980, giving them a reasonable opportunity, asking them to submit their replies and put up their defence against the alleged illegalities/improprieties. In response to the notices, the petitioners appeared and raised preliminary objections to the proceedings. It was contended that the Package Act had no application to the properties in dispute and it was accordingly contended that the proceedings held were illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further stated that these sales had taken place under the Central Act (Displaced Persons Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and as such, could only be challenged under the rules and provisions of the Act. It was accordingly pleaded that Chief Sales Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter, proceeding further. The petitioners had also pleaded that the sale had been confirmed and the State was estopped from challenging the sale, which is also barred by time. Disputing the plea on merits in terms of the notice issued, it is stated that the omissions in the proclamation were the responsibility of the Revenue Department and not of the petitioners. It is accordingly pleaded that the auction had taken place 17 years ago and the land, which was banjrakdim, has been developed by the petitioners at considerable expenses and, therefore, it was pleaded that notices issued to them be withdrawn. The Chief Sales Commissioner, however, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and ultimately came to the conclusion that the sales are hit by the elements of fraud, collusion and false representation. The Chief Sales Commissioner, however, did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and ultimately came to the conclusion that the sales are hit by the elements of fraud, collusion and false representation. Even after noticing that considerable time has passed, he went ahead to cancel the sales and ordered restoration of the land to Rehabilitation Department of Punjab Government. This order is under challenge in the present writ petitions. 4. The writ petitions have been admitted. Reply has been filed. 5. At the outset, my attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh Vs. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, 1996 (2) RRR 246, where similar petitions, challenging the order settingaside sales in favour of respective petitioners therein, have been allowed. In Mohinder Singh’s case (supra), it is held that to invoke power conferred under Section 10(2), the Chief Sales Commissioner must be satisfied that the purchaser at the auction played fraud or made false representation or concealed any material facts. It is further held that Section 10(2) can not be invoked on the ground of irregularity in proclamation of sale committed by the authorities. View further is that the confirmed sale can not be set-aside on the ground of irregularity in proclamation of sale. Finding further is that no case for fraud made out in the absence of any such allegation against the purchaser-petitioner and accordingly the order, cancelling the sale has been quashed. 6. Bare reading of Section 10(2) of the Package Act would show that to invoke power under the Section, Chief Sales Commissioner must satisfy himself that the purchaser at the auction played fraud or made false representation or concealed any material facts. Allegations, if any, are against the revenue staff and not against the petitioners. Even in the show cause notice issued to the petitioners, no allegation of fraud etc. are made against them. As held in Mohinder Singh (supra), fraud, mis-representation or concealment of fact must be by the petitioners. The allegations, as alleged, can not be made ground for setting-aside sale under Section 10(2) of the Package Act. 7. It is not disputed before me that the facts in the present cases are identical and the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the law of land laid down in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra). The allegations, as alleged, can not be made ground for setting-aside sale under Section 10(2) of the Package Act. 7. It is not disputed before me that the facts in the present cases are identical and the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the law of land laid down in the case of Mohinder Singh (supra). Accordingly, following the same, the present writ petitions are allowed. The sales held in public auction in the year 1963 i.e. more than 17 years prior to setting-aside the sale in the year 1980-81 are required to be sustained and are up-held. The order of Chief Sales Commissioner dated 31.10.1980, Annexure P-7, is set-aside. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. ----------------