JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - Both the writ petitions are connected and they seek for adjudication in respect of the Financial Commissioner’s orders passed in respect of the very same property. CWP No.6349 of 1988 is at the instance of the legal representative of one Daulat Ram and CWP No.8032 of 1988 is at the instance of purchaser from Daulat Ram. The issue involved in the case is the correctness of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order of correction made in the sale certificate issued jointly in the name of Daulat Ram and Gian Chand. 2. It appears that after the initial amount that stood credited to Daulat Ram at the time of public auction, the balance of money, which was to be paid, had been paid by Daulat Ram’s nephew, who was Gian Chand and a sale certificate had also been issued subsequently on 18.08.1965 in the names of both Gian Chand and Daulat Ram. It is an admitted fact that an application for modification of the sale certificate was filed by Daulat Ram before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act of 1976, (for short, ‘the 1976 Act’) contending that the property had been indeed purchased only by Daulat Ram, but his nephew Gian Chand had, while making remittance on his behalf, fraudulently made it appear as though, he was remitting the amount in his own right and had secured a joint sale certificate to be issued without his knowledge or concurrence. It is seen from the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner on 21.08.1979 that notice had been issued to Gian Chand, but he did not appear. He was consequently set ex parte and the Chief Sales Commissioner accepted the contention of Daulat Ram and ordered the rectification of the sale certificate issued jointly and directed that the sale certificate shall bear the name of Daulat Ram only. On the basis of the sale certificate, Daulat Ram had filed a civil suit for declaration and for injunction against Gian Chand in Civil Suit No.149 of 1978 instituted on 18.11.1978. Before the conclusion of trial, it appears, Gian Chand had challenged the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner and sought for its quashment by approaching this Court in CWP No.124 of 1980. Before the conclusion of trial, it appears, Gian Chand had challenged the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner and sought for its quashment by approaching this Court in CWP No.124 of 1980. The writ petition was disposed off on 17.03.1980 directing the petitioner to approach the Chief Sales Commissioner for appropriate orders. The civil suit was disposed off subsequently after full contest on 22.12.1980. The manner of disposal, in my view, has an important bearing to the case, for, the issues raised in the writ petition were surely relevant for several of the contentious issues before the authorities. 3. Before the Civil Court, no doubt the corrected sale certificate was alone relied upon but Daulat Ram had taken a contention that the original sale certificate that was taken jointly was an act of fraud by Gian Chand. He asserted that the property had been remaining only in his possession. The defendant Gian Chand was contending that he had paid Rs.2,250/- being a larger slice of consideration and the sale certificate which was originally issued was actually in recognition of the joint entitlement. Two other important contentions were taken by Gian Chand, namely, the Civil Court itself did not have jurisdiction and the suit was barred by limitation since the sale certificate had been issued in the year 1965 initially and the issue of who was entitled to the property could not be an issue for adjudication before the Civil Court. The issue No.1 in the suit was the issue of jurisdiction. Issue No.2 was the issue of limitation and the issue No.5 was whether the plaintiff was the sole owner of the disputed shop. The trial Court found the onus of proof of issues No.1 and 2 were on the defendant and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on title and since the suit itself had been filed only after obtaining a correction in the sale certificate, it had not been barred by limitation. On a more important issue relating to ownership, the Court relied on not merely on the amended sale certificate but held that Gian Chand had committed a fraud and taken the certificate jointly. He referred to the fact that the offer for payment had been made only by Daulat Ram and he was alone in possession of the property. On a more important issue relating to ownership, the Court relied on not merely on the amended sale certificate but held that Gian Chand had committed a fraud and taken the certificate jointly. He referred to the fact that the offer for payment had been made only by Daulat Ram and he was alone in possession of the property. This judgment became final as regards the ownership of the property which was affirmed by the Civil Court on the basis of the amended sale certificate. 4. Simultaneously the proceedings before the authorities constituted under the 1976 Act were also prosecuted before the Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner confirmed the order that had already been passed and he held that Gian Chand’s name had been subsequently included and the bid was offered exclusively by Daulat Ram. He held that it was fraud played by Gian Chand with his old uncle with the connivance of departmental officials. He referred to the fact that the memorandum of offer was signed exclusively only by Daulat Ram. He, therefore, found no reason to interfere with the same. On a petition filed under Section 33 by Gian Chand to the Financial Commissioner, he held that the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation had passed orders as a Chief Settlement Commissioner whereas the order should have been passed as a Chief Sales Commissioner under the 1976 Act. He, therefore, directed the matter for consideration before the Chief Sales Commissioner. On remand, the Commissioner rejected the petition as barred by time and when the matter came up before the Financial Commissioner again, the orders passed already were set aside and the Financial Commissioner held that the judgments of the Civil Courts which are based on revised sale certificate issued exclusively in the name of Daulat Ram could not deprive the petitioner of his entitlement of property in dispute for which Gian Chand had purported to have paid 3/4th of the amount. 5. 5. The issue before this Court is whether the Financial Commissioner was justified in reversing the orders passed by the lower authority on finding that (i) there had been interpolations in the bid sheets by incorporating the name of Gian Chand; (ii) the memorandum of offer had been made only by Daulat Ram; (iii) the acceptance of bid had been made only from Daulat Ram and the receipt had been issued only in the name of Daulat Ram; (iv) the remittance challan had been signed only by Daulat Ram in lande; and (v) there had been a fraud practiced by Gian Chand by including his name in the sale certificate and therefore, it was liable to be modified. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has yet another point to argue that the issue of title to the property has already been concluded by the Civil Court, not merely on the basis that the amended sale certificate had been issued exclusively in the name of Daulat Ram, but it had actually accepted the contention of the plaintiff that he was in exclusive possession. The Civil Court’s decision conclusively put beyond the pale of controversy that a fraud had been practiced and the Financial Commissioner’s order was, therefore, untenable. 6. The respective counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the two writ petitions contend that the bid sheets contained the name of Gian Chand, above the name of Daulat Ram only because he had paid the major portion of the consideration and even the remittance challan contained not merely the signature of Daulat Ram but contained also the name of Gian Chand in his signature. The order passed originally modifying the sale certificate was an ex parte proceeding and, therefore, the decision is not valid. The Civil Court’s decision itself cannot be conclusive, for, it was passed only on the basis of amended sale certificate. In any event, the Civil Court itself does not have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which express provisions were made under the 1976 Act and in terms of Section 16, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was completely excluded and there was a finality to the orders of the authorities passed under the Act. 7. In any event, the Civil Court itself does not have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which express provisions were made under the 1976 Act and in terms of Section 16, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was completely excluded and there was a finality to the orders of the authorities passed under the Act. 7. When the issue is the validity of the order of the Financial Commissioner in proceedings brought under the 1976 Act, I will not merely allow the Civil Court’s decision alone to prevail, without reference to the facts elicited by the Authorities under the Act. The issue of title which the Civil Court concluded was on the basis of a corrected sale certificate. Therefore, if the sale certificate itself was modified or restored to be drawn in the name of both the parties, then the Civil Court decree would require to be read down. However, the Civil Court decree is certainly relevant in a situation where the parties contested on the issue of who actually bid at the auction, who paid the consideration and who was actually in possession of the property. As a simple suit of a declaration based on the sale certificate as amended, the institution of suit before the Civil Court was certainly maintainable. The Civil Court had also held clearly that it had jurisdiction. I will not however treat the Civil Court decree as res judicata but would take the judgment and decree as also relevant before this Court in the writ jurisdiction, where there is no scope for oral evidence. The Civil Court had the benefit of examination of both parties and had held that there had been an interpolation in the bid sheet. This had been referred to even in the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner initially when he was passing an order on 21.08.1979. The memorandum of offer had also been made admittedly only by Daulat Ram. I find that even the receipt issued initially accepting the bid had been only in the name of Daulat Ram. The remittance challan also contained the signature of Daulat Ram. The memorandum of offer had also been made admittedly only by Daulat Ram. I find that even the receipt issued initially accepting the bid had been only in the name of Daulat Ram. The remittance challan also contained the signature of Daulat Ram. Consequently, with three documents clearly showing the offer and the acceptance, besides the remittance containing the signature of Daulat Ram, the fact was that the Civil Court had found, as earlier held by the Chief Sales Commissioner that the sale certificate was a product of fraud practiced by Gian Chand on his aged uncle Daulat Ram. The Civil Court decree finding a fraud leading to a declaration of title was surely relevant and cannot be discarded. 8. It is no doubt true that Section 16 excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide on matters for which specific powers are granted under the Act to authorities under the 1976 Act. The Civil Court could not have given a declaration that the sale certificate was wrongly made; the Civil Court could not have decided, who was entitled to allotment; the Civil Court could not have modified the sale certificate as it was done by the authorities. The Civil Court, on the other hand, had a right to declare, who was the owner of the property; the Civil Court was entitled to examine the circumstances on how Gian Chand’s name came to be introduced in the sale certificate. 9. The Financial Commissioner was in error in finding that the Civil Court had rendered the decree only on the basis of the modified sale certificate. When the Financial Commissioner was examining whether the modification could have been made entering the name of Daulat Ram only, it was bound to see whether the finding already entered that there had been interpolation in the bid sheet and the factors that the authorities below had seen that the offer and the acceptance had been only by Daulat Ram and recorded so in the official records could be set aside. Without finding fault with these unimpeachable inferences, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner holding that by the only fact that the sale certificate had been issued jointly, it should be so retained, without minding the other factors examined by the Chief Sales Commissioner, was clearly wrong. Without finding fault with these unimpeachable inferences, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner holding that by the only fact that the sale certificate had been issued jointly, it should be so retained, without minding the other factors examined by the Chief Sales Commissioner, was clearly wrong. The respondents cannot make a virtue about the fact that Gian Chand did not participate in the enquiry before the Chief Sales Commissioner initially and that the proceedings were ex parte. If ex parte proceedings could be dumped at all times as irrelevant, it is the easiest thing for any party to do, to deliberately allow proceedings to go ex parte, only to turn round and say that since the order is ex parte, he will not be bound. On the other hand, ex parte proceedings have a value to what it decides. If Gian Chand did not allow himself an opportunity to give evidence as to how the interpolation came about and also explain as to why the offer and acceptance of the initial bid had proceeded only from Daulat Ram and if he had not given definite evidence before the Chief Sales Commissioner to how the contention of Daulat Ram that he had entrusted the money to him to make the balance of payment on his behalf was wrong, he cannot contend that all those inferences made by his non-appearance should be discarded. On the other hand, I would hold the fact that despite notice through acknowledgment due, the fact that Gian Chand did not appear before the Chief Sales Commissioner was itself significant. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contend that the proceedings for modification of the sale certificate issued were themselves initiated merely 13 to 14 years after the initial grant. The contention had been that Daulat Ram himself did not know about it and therefore, he was seeking for a modification as soon as he came to know about it, which was accepted by the Chief Sales Commissioner. Nothing can therefore turn upon the fact that Daulat Ram did not have the sale certificate duly corrected immediately after it was issued. 10. The order of the Financial Commissioner was clearly wrong and it had taken a wrong decision that the Civil Court had passed an order only on the basis of amended certificate. Nothing can therefore turn upon the fact that Daulat Ram did not have the sale certificate duly corrected immediately after it was issued. 10. The order of the Financial Commissioner was clearly wrong and it had taken a wrong decision that the Civil Court had passed an order only on the basis of amended certificate. The Financial Commissioner also discarded the weighty reasons taken by the Chief Sales Commissioner initially when it found that Gian Chand had obtained the sale certificate jointly by exercise of fraud and by acting in connivance with the officials. The Financial Commissioner was also in error in not adverting to the conduct of Gian Chand in not appearing before the Chief Sales Commissioner when a notice had been issued in the proceedings for modification of the sale certificate. He also discarded the further conduct that he did not choose to assail the finding of the Civil Court as regards the possession and the fact that after the evidence the Civil Court had found that Gian Chand had practiced fraud on Daulat Ram of initially securing a joint sale certificate. 11. The learned counsel argues that in CWP No.8032 of 1988 the challenge is brought at the instance of the purchasers and such a writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of a Full Bench of this Court that the purchasers are not entitled to plead bonafides of the purchase under the proceedings under the Act of 1976. I allow the writ petition in CWP No.8032 of 1988 not on the ground of bonafides of the purchase but on the ground that their vendor Daulat Ram was entitled to the property exclusively and as purchasers they are entitled to be rewarded with the similar benefits. 12. Both the writ petitions are allowed as above with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-. --------------