JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The petitioner challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Punjab Package Deal Properties Act and the relevant Rules. The property in dispute, which is covered in sale file No. 1649, had been brought up for sale in a public auction on 15/16.10.1975 and by order of Additional Sales Officer, it was adjourned to 17.10.1975 and against the reserved price of Rs.1,620/-, the property was auctioned in favour of one Joginder Pal for Rs. 17,800/-. Since no objection had been received within a period of one month, the sale was ordered to be confirmed on 05.12.1975. Against the order of confirmation by the Additional Sales Officer, review of the order through a petition had been filed before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner rejected the review application holding that there contained no accidental slip or clerical error and he could not interfere with the order passed confirming the sale. This order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner passed on 30.07.1976 was made subject of revision under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 before the Chief Sales Commissioner. 2. Before the Chief Sales Commissioner, it was contended that the auction had been proposed to be held only on 15/16.1 0.1975 and the sale conducted on 17.10.1975 was incompetent. This objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Chief Sales Commissioner by reference to Rule 6(viii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules that allowed for the Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales), if the situation so demanded, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to adjourn the sale for a specific date and hour and an announcement would be made at the time of adjournment of the sale. Only in a case where the sale was adjourned for a period of exceeding 15 days, a fresh notice was required to be issued. The Chief Sales Commissioner had found that the notification for sales of the property on 15/16.10.1975 was not in dispute and since the sale had been adjourned only by a day and the signature of all the participants at the auction had also been secured, a fresh proclamation was not necessary and in terms of the rules, the auction held on 17.10.1975 did not suffer from any irregularity. 3. 3. As regards the petitioner’s claim relating to alleged irregularity, defect and fraud in the conduct of the sale, the Chief Sales Commissioner found that the auction was hotly) contested when even the son of the petitioner had participated in the auction. The highest bid of Rs. 17,800/- against the reserve price of Rs. 1,620/- showed that the sale fetched the best price and since there was no objection, the sale had also been confirmed by the competent authority. 4. The further objection made by the petitioner was that the property was shamilat and it could not have been sold, as it vested in village Panchayat. It was the contention that the property on could not be treated as a surplus rural evacuee ag­ricultural land. The Chief Sales Commissioner held that the Panchayat itself had not staked any claim to the property and even the petitioner had not made any attempt to implead the Panchayat as a party in the proceedings. Under such a circumstances, he held that it was not possible to hold that the Board could offer any relief in favour of the petitioner, merely on an oral assertion made by the petitioner on behalf of the Panchayat. This order was confirmed subsequently by the Com­missioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in a fur­ther revision filed by the petitioner, the final or­der of the Commissioner merely confirmed the order passed by the authority below. It was contended before the Commissioner that the son-in­-law of Joginder Pal, who was the purchaser, had himself applied for transfer of the disputed land on the basis of possession but the same had been rejected that he had already been allotted land elsewhere. The Commissioner found that it was irrelevant to examine the issue of a claim by the son-in-law of Joginder Pal but held that in absence of proof or title of the property in the Panchayat, a mere contention that the petitioner had constructed a room in the land in an unauthorized manner would not avail to challenge the sale, which had been conducted according to rules. 5. 5. Apart from reiterating the contention raised before the authorities, which had been dealt with in detail and which have brought out through this order above, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Press-notes issued in the years 1979­-80 and subsequently, to enable cultivating ten­ants in continuous undisputed possession, evi­denced through the entries in khasra and gir­dawaris from Rabi, 1976 would give a justification for a claim to obtain a sale of the property at certain rates mentioned. According to him, the property must have been offered for sale only to him. It is precisely this contention, which has been taken note of by the Chief Sales Commissioner in his order when he observed that the petitioner himself had not offered to purchase the property and he was only interested in claiming that the sale made already suffered from lack of competence to offer the property for sale. To a query from the Court as to when the petitioner had ever made an offer to purchase before it was put up for auction and sold on 17.10.1975, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,059/- through a treasury challan on 24.10.1979. I cannot see how this could constitute a valid offer to purchase in terms the Press-note. A press-note recognizes a right to purchase at a particular rate but if the property had already been sold, then the petitioner cannot obtain any preferential right—On the other hand, the petitioner has attempted to assail the sale by taking several grounds, each of which was found to be untenable and, in my view, rightly held so, by the authorities. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 PLJ 183 that the person falling in the categories covered by the Press-note of 1962 have an enforceable legal right. There is no dispute on the issue of the petitioner’s right through a Press-note. The question is whether a person, who has failed to exercise his right before the sale could seek for annulment of a sale on the basis of a post sale offer after 3 years by deposit of price. There is no dispute on the issue of the petitioner’s right through a Press-note. The question is whether a person, who has failed to exercise his right before the sale could seek for annulment of a sale on the basis of a post sale offer after 3 years by deposit of price. In this case, I have already observed that the sale had been held on 17.10.1975 and confirmed through the order of the Additional Sales Officer on 05.11.1975 and approved by higher Officer on 05.12.1975. It could no be re-opened by offer of purchase 4 years later, on petitioner to assail the sale before the authorities had been disposed of. I would hold that such a right does not exist endlessly. 7. The order passed by the authorities suffered from no legal vice for making any interference. The challenge in the writ petition ought to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.