Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 985 (PNJ)

Gurmukh Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-07-25

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - One Dhanno Devi widow of Shri Duli Chand was allotted land measuring 17 standard acres on 13.12.1956 under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short “1954 Act) in lieu of the land left in Pakistan. This allotment, however, was cancelled on 23.10.1970 on the ground that there is no such allottee and no one had made any effort to cultivate the land. 25 canals of land situated in village Lohgarh, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar was part of the cancelled evacuee surplus agricultural land allotted in favour of Dhanno Devi. As per the petitioner, the land so retrieved was required to be sold by public auction in terms of Rule 6(2)(i) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (for short “Disposal Rules”). 2. The petitioner makes a grievance that instead of putting this land to open auction, the same was put on sale by way of restricted auction on 20.7.1984. The petitioner would term this as an act of fraud, as according to him, only 2-3 persons participated in this auction and secured sale in their favour. The petitioner filed objections against this auction before the Sales Commissioner on the ground that he was in continuous possession of the suit land. His plea was that there is clear bar under the statutory provisions for putting this land to restricted auction. 3. The objections filed by the petitioner were summarily rejected by the Sales Commissioner on 11.7.1985. Respondent No.7, who had purchased this land, did not deposit the amount within the stipulated period. When the respondents made an attempt to interfere in the possession of the petitioner forcibly, he filed a suit seeking permanent injunction. The respondents appeared and made a statement that they will not dispossess the plaintiff except in due course of law. 4. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order passed by the Sales Commissioner, which was rejected on 8.5.1986. The petitioner then filed a revision against this order before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was accepted on 6.6.1990. Commissioner, Jalandhar remanded the case back to the Sales Commissioner for deciding it afresh as according to him the suit land could not have been put to restricted auction. 5. Respondent No.7 challenged this order before the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner then filed a revision against this order before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which was accepted on 6.6.1990. Commissioner, Jalandhar remanded the case back to the Sales Commissioner for deciding it afresh as according to him the suit land could not have been put to restricted auction. 5. Respondent No.7 challenged this order before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner accepted this revision filed by respondent No.7 on 31.1.1991 and remanded the case back to the Commissioner to decide the same at his own level. In the meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo in regard to possession. 6. Petitioner challenged this order passed by the Financial Commissioner by way of CWP No.12496 of 1991. Similar Writ Petition No.12356 of 1991 was also filed by one Rajinder Singh. The court while issuing notice of motion stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 31.1.1991. Recently, on 18.3.2011, this court has set aside the order passed by the Financial Commissioner and remitted the case to him to decide afresh within a period of three months. The Financial Commissioner accordingly has accepted the revision on 29.5.2012, which the petitioner has now challenged through the present writ petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has made two-fold submissions before me. He would first contend that the land, which was retrieved under Directory Organization could not have been put to sale by way of restricted auction. In support, the counsel has relied upon Rule 6(2)(i) of the Disposal Rules. The petitioner had filed objection application under Rule 6-A of the Disposal Rules, which was dismissed on the ground that he failed to deposit the auction amount equivalent to 20% of the highest bid. As held, the plea of the petitioner could have validly been entertained if he had fulfilled the condition of Rule 6-A while challenging this sale by way of restricted auction in favour of respondent No.7. 8. A perusal of Rule 6(2)(i), which is pressed hard by the counsel, provides that the lands retrieved by Directory Organization set up by the State Rehabilitation Department, which are not transferred to the displaced land holders, is to be sold by public auction. The surplus rural evacuee agricultural land, which is not specified in Rule 6(2)(i) to (iv) alone can be disposed of by restricted auction. The surplus rural evacuee agricultural land, which is not specified in Rule 6(2)(i) to (iv) alone can be disposed of by restricted auction. The restricted auction in favour of respondent No.2 is challenged on the ground that the land was retrieved by Directory Organization. There is no material on record to show that the land was retrived by any Directory Organization of Rehabilitation Department. The counsel has also not pointed out to any material which would show that the land was retrieved by any Directory Organization set up by the Rehabilitation Department. Rojnamcha for the year 1970-71 (Annexure P-1) is by Patwar Halqa and not by Rehabilitation Department. In the absence of this material, the very basis raised by the counsel for the petitioner is found non-existent. 9. Otherwise also, the petitioner did not comply with the requirement laid down under Rule 6-A. As per this statutory rule, the application which the petitioner filed could be so filed within ten days of the auction which the petitioner failed to do. Financial Commissioner is right in holding that the Commissioner was not justified in entertaining the challenge on the face of non-compliance of these statutory provisions. The petitioner had only filed an application under Section 6A of Disposal Rules and in order to become eligible and to succeed, he was to comply with the requirements contained therein. 10. In view of this legal and factual position, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.