Paramjeet Singh, J. 1. Instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) passed by Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar, order dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure P/5) passed by Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6) passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7) passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. Brief facts of the case are that a shop measuring 510 sq. feet bearing No. 43 is situated in village Bholath, Sub Tehsil Bholath, Tehsil and District Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop in question'). Respondent No. 5 vide application dated 16.07.1962 applied for transfer of shop in question in view of a press note dated 06.01.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab vide which the persons in unauthorized possession of such property were allowed to seek its transfer, if they were in possession prior to 31.12.1957. The said application was rejected by Naib Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer on 05.08.1963 holding that respondent No. 5 has failed to show his actual physical possession over the shop in question prior to 31.12.1957. In fact, the said shop was allotted to one Bal Kishan who remained in its continuous possession ever after 1960. Possession of respondent No. 5 over the shop in question before 1960 is not established. Against the order dated 05.08.1963 respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.01.1964 and said order was never challenged, thus, attained finality. Punjab Government issued another press note dated 05.08.1962 under which respondent No. 5 vide application dated 31.12.1962 again applied for transfer of the shop in question on the basis of possession. The second press note was with regard to surplus rural houses and taurs but not for shops situated in abadi of rural areas and possession of the house/taur was required to be prior to 31.12.1960. It is pertinent to mention that Government of India vide letter No. 3(53)/Pol-II/60, Land and Rent dated 03.06.1961 transferred some properties to Punjab Government which were surplus rural houses and taurs and was never meant for the shops situated in rural areas. Vide order dated 19.07.1966 Naib Tehsildar (Sales) rejected the second application of respondent No. 5. In the meantime, vide order dated 18.06.1966 Managing Officer ordered the sale of property by way of auction. Vide order dated 19.07.1966 Naib Tehsildar (Sales) rejected the second application of respondent No. 5. In the meantime, vide order dated 18.06.1966 Managing Officer ordered the sale of property by way of auction. Respondent No. 5 did not challenge the order dated 18.06.1966. Ultimately auction was held on 19.07.1966 after proclamation and wide publicity by Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer. Petitioner purchased the said shop by offering highest bid of ` 7005/- against the reserve price of ` 2200/- and deposited ` 1800/- as earnest money equivalent to approximately 25% of the bid amount. It needs to be mentioned that 32 bids were offered at the time of auction. No objections were filed against the auction sale. The sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.1966. The said order has attained finality as it was never challenged. However, respondent No. 5 challenged the order vide which his application dated 31.01.1962 for transfer of shop in question was rejected by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) by way of appeal, which was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 31.08.1966. Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 31.08.1966 in revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who rejected the revision, however, ordered re-auction of the shop in question vide order dated 27.04.1967. Both the parties challenged the order dated 27.04.1967 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Act') before the officer exercising the powers of Central Government. The Central Government disposed of both the petitions vide order dated 06.01.1969 (Annexure P/1) and case was remanded to the Managing Officer for examining the case of respondent No. 5 under second press note dated 05.08.1962 and transfer it to him if he was found entitled thereto and refund the amount deposited by the petitioner, but if respondent No. 5 was not found entitled to transfer of the shop, the auction would stand and sale to the petitioner would not be examined afresh. The said order was challenged by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 vide separate writ petitions in this Court. The said order was challenged by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 vide separate writ petitions in this Court. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2617 of 1970 which was partly allowed vide order dated 12.05.1980 and case was remanded to the same Managing Officer to whom it was remanded by the Central Government vide order dated 06.01.1969 with a direction to first ascertain as to whether the shop in question was or was not a package deal property. Civil Writ Petition No. 1212 of 1980 filed by respondent No. 5 was also disposed of in same terms. On remand Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Man-aging Officer, Kapurthala vide order dated 23.06.1981 held that the shop in question was not a package deal property but an evacuee property. The case was then transferred to Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar, who vide his ex parte order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) transferred the shop in question to respondent No. 5 without controverting the findings recorded in Annexure P/3 that the shop in question is an evacuee property. Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer even further exceeded his jurisdiction while holding that respondent No. 5 is in possession since 1956-57. Although, it was held in the order dated 28.01.1964 that respondent No. 5 was not in possession since 1956-57. Prior to passing of order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P-4) respondent No. 5 made proclamation in the village that he had won over respondent No. 4 - Managing Officer, therefore the order would be passed in his favour. Therefore, petitioner moved an application for transfer of the case from respondent No. 4. Without waiting for the decision on transfer application, respondent No. 4 passed the order Annexure P/4. Petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4). During the pendency of appeal, Tehsildar (Sales) issued conveyance deed in favour of respondent No. 5 on 14.12.1981 on the basis of possession. However, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure P/5). Petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter petitioner filed petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act, which has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, vide order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7). Hence, this writ petition. 2. In pursuance of notice respondents appeared. Petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter petitioner filed petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act, which has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, vide order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7). Hence, this writ petition. 2. In pursuance of notice respondents appeared. Respondent No. 5 filed separate written statement contending that order dated 06.01.1969 passed by Central Government has not been intentionally annexed by the petitioner. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner, Chief Settlement Commissioner and even the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the 1954 Act also held that shop in question has been validly transferred in favour of respondent No. 5. It is pleaded that earlier application of respondent No. 5 was rejected on the ground that he had failed to establish his possession over the shop in question prior to 31.12.1957. So the order passed by earlier authorities was not required to be challenged. Respondent No. 5 submitted second application in view of second press note dated 05.08.1962 on the basis of possession over the property prior to 31.12.1960. The auction sale in favour of the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary and property could not have been sold. Petitioner had approached the authorities under the 1954 Act but at the same time he is alleging that the property was package deal property. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Admitted facts are to the effect that first press note was issued on 06.01.1960 wherein it was mentioned that persons in unauthorized possession of the property prior to 31.12.1957 would be allowed to seek its transfer in their names. Application of respondent No. 5 for transfer was rejected on 05.08.1963 and his appeal was also dismissed on 28.01.1964. Those proceedings attained finality. Thereafter second press note was issued on 05.08.1962 with regard to sale of rural houses and taurs with the condition that persons who were in possession of such property prior to 31.12.1960 could get it transferred in their name. The second application of respondent No. 5 for transfer was also rejected by the Managing Officer vide order dated 18.06.1966, which has become final. Thereafter auction was held on 19.07.1966 in which petitioner was allotted the land. The second application of respondent No. 5 for transfer was also rejected by the Managing Officer vide order dated 18.06.1966, which has become final. Thereafter auction was held on 19.07.1966 in which petitioner was allotted the land. The said sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner on 31.09.1966, which has attained finality. However, respondent No. 5 continued to challenge the proceedings arising out of second press note regarding transfer of shop in question. The matter came upto this Court as petitioner and respondent No. 5 filed separate writ petitions. 5. In C.W.P. No. 2617 of 1970 filed by the petitioner herein, this Court passed following order:- "Now a contention has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the property in dispute was a package deal property and the authorities who passed the orders, annexures 'B' and 'C' were not competent to pass the same in view of the judgment of this court in Bishan Singh and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others, 1973 P.L.J. 183. Since this point was not taken in the petition itself, the respondents obviously could not controvert it in their written statement. But as the point goes to the very root of the case and on the determination of which the very jurisdiction of the authorities concerned would depend, I allowed it to be agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the parties agree that for the proper decision of the case, the factual position in this regard be also allowed to be determined by the authority to whom the case has been remanded vide order annexure 'C. In this view of the matter I allow the petition to the extent that authority to whom the case has been remanded vide order annexure 'C' would also go into this matter as to whether the property in question was or was not a package deal property. For all purposes the directions given in annexure 'C' would stand and I decline to interfere with these orders." 6. On remand, vide order dated 23.06.1980 Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala, held that shop in question was not a package deal property but an evacuee property. Although, this order is not happily worded. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar, transferred the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 5. On remand, vide order dated 23.06.1980 Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Kapurthala, held that shop in question was not a package deal property but an evacuee property. Although, this order is not happily worded. Thereafter, vide order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar, transferred the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 5. Thereafter, petitioner preferred appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure P/5). Petitioner further filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was also dismissed vide order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6) holding that respondent No. 5 was in possession prior to 31.12.1960. The said order was upheld by Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7). 7. The letter dated 03.06.1961 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation reads as under:- "No. 3(35)/Pol. 11/60, Land and Rent GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Jaisalmer House, New Delhi. Dated the 3rd June, 1961. From The Chief Settlement Commissioner & Joint Secretary to the Government of India. To The Secretary to the Government of Punjab. Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur. Subject. - Sales of surplus rural evacuee lands and houses/taurs to the Punjab Government. Sir, I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with Shri B.S. Garewal's D.O. letter No. Reh. (61)/833, dated the 24th April, 1961, on the above subject, and to state that as a result of the further discussions held with him on the 4th May, 1961, the following decisions have been taken for transfer of the surplus evacuee lands and houses/taws to the Punjab Government:- (1) An area of about 80,000 std. acres of surplus land will be sold to the Punjab Government at the rate of` 446 std. acre. (2) The surplus rural house/taurs, the estimated value of which is about ` 2 crores will be sold to the Punjab Government at 5 per cent of the reserve price already fixed. (3) The Punjab Government will be given a rebate equal to 60% of the sale price of (1) and (2) above to meet administrative expenses for the disposal of the above properties. (4) Banjar land, approximately 1,11,004 acres will be sold to the Punjab Government at ` 5 per acre. (3) The Punjab Government will be given a rebate equal to 60% of the sale price of (1) and (2) above to meet administrative expenses for the disposal of the above properties. (4) Banjar land, approximately 1,11,004 acres will be sold to the Punjab Government at ` 5 per acre. (5) The entire area of Ghair mumkin land, the area of which is not yet known will be sold to the Punjab Government at a token price of ` 100. (6) Any other land which is not fit for cultivation such as land under river action or situated in the Bet areas will be treated as Ghair Mumkin/banjar land, as the case may be and sold to the Punjab Government on the rates mentioned under (4) and (5) above. The area of such land is also not yet known. 2. The area or the number wherever mentioned is only approximate, the Punjab Government would take immediate steps to find out the extent of area of each category and the number of the houses taurs together with their reserve price. The total amount payable on that account will also be intimated by them soon. 3. It has also been decided that the entire price of the above properties will be paid by the Punjab Government within a period of 3 years commencing from 1st April, 1961. The payment will be made half yearly so as to complete the entire price in six installments. The first installment will be paid on 1st October, 1961. These installments will not bear any interest. The last installment will be paid on or before 31st March, 1964. 4. Those properties will also be deemed to have been transferred to the Punjab Government with effect from the 1st April, 1961. All income derived from these properties after that date, i.e. rent, lease money etc., will be credited to the State Head of Account. 5. The amount to be paid by the Punjab Government will be credited to te compensation pool under the head of account "XLVI-Misc receipts on account of Displaced Persons Receipts on account of acquired evacuee property." 6. Monthly return of the progress of the work may please be forwarded to this office on the 10th of each month. Yours faithfully, S.W. SHIVESHWARKAR, Chief Settlement Commissioner and Joint Secretary to Government of India." 8. Monthly return of the progress of the work may please be forwarded to this office on the 10th of each month. Yours faithfully, S.W. SHIVESHWARKAR, Chief Settlement Commissioner and Joint Secretary to Government of India." 8. The letter dated 29.03.1963 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) reads as under:- "No. F18(40)140-Prop/Comp. & Prop. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF WORKS, HOUSING AND REHABILITATION (Department of Rehabilitation) Office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Jaisalmer House, New Delhi. Dated the 29th March, 1963. From The Chief Settlement Commissioner. To The Secretary to the Government of Punjab. Rehabilitation Department, Jullundur/Chandigarh. Subject. - Transfer of acquired evacuee urban built up properties to the Government of Punjab in package deal. Sir, I am directed to refer to item No. VI of the minutes of the meeting held at Chandigarh on the 16th February, 1963 between the Chief Minister, Punjab and the Union Minister for Works, Housing and Rehabilitation and to convey the sanction of the President to the sale of the remaining Acquired Evacuee Urban Built-up properties comprising of houses, shops, Khola/sites in Punjab to the Punjab Government at 15 per cent of their reserve price as per details given in the attached statement. 2. The total price recoverable from the Punjab government in respect of the above properties is ` 27,25,294 (Rupees twenty-seven lacs-twenty-five thousand two hundred and ninety-four only). The above amount will be paid by the Punjab Government in a lump sum on 1st April, 1969, but in case the State Government desire to pay the amount within a period of one year i.e. up to 31st March, 1970, no interest will be charged. The amount paid by the Punjab Government will be credited to "Compensation Pool" under the Head of Account "LII-Miscellaneous Receipts on account of DPS Receipts forming part of Compensation Pool-Receipts on account of Sale of acquired Evacuee Properties". 3. The above properties will be deemed to have been transferred to the Punjab Government from 1st April, 1963. All income derived from these properties after 1st April, 1963, i.e. rents, lease money etc. will be credited to the State Head of Account. All receipts of these properties in respect of the period prior to the 1st April, 1963, will be credited to the Central Government. 4. All income derived from these properties after 1st April, 1963, i.e. rents, lease money etc. will be credited to the State Head of Account. All receipts of these properties in respect of the period prior to the 1st April, 1963, will be credited to the Central Government. 4. Acquired urban Evacuee built-up properties which had already been sold by auction or by allotment by the Regional Settlement Commissioner but in respect of which sales transfers might be cancelled in future on account of failure of purchasers to pay up the balance purchase price or for any other reasons will not form part of this Package Deal. Such properties will be disposed of by the State Government and the sale proceeds credited to the Central Government. The question of paying the State Government a commission on the sale proceeds to cover their expenditure will be considered in due course. 5. This letter issues with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), vide their U.O. No. 766/FR-1163, dated 27th March, 1962. Yours faithfully, M.J. SHIVASTAVA, Settlement Commissioner and Ex-Officio Under Secretary to the Government of India STATEMENT SHOWING DETAILS IN RESPECT OF ACQUIRED EVACUEE URBAN PROPERTIES IN PUNJAB SOLD TO THE PUNJAB GOVERNMENT IN A PACKAGE DEAL Sr.No Nature of properties No. of properties Reserve price Price to be paid by the Punjab Government 12345 1 House……7,381Rs.1,15,33,313/-Rs.17,29,997/- 2 Shops……170L 6,64,218/-Rs.99,633/- 3.Kholas……7,543Rs.59,71,092/-Rs.8,95,564/- 15,094Rs.1,81,68,623/-Rs.27,25,294 Note. - Detailed lists of the properties transferred to the Punjab Government are being prepared by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur after actual survey and will be furnished to the State Government by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. There may, therefore, be some variations in the above figures. M.J. SHIVASTAVA, Settlement Commissioner and Ex-Officio Under Secretary to the Government of India." 9. The fact remains that the property has been vested in the Central Government under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and said property was being governed thereafter under the Act, of 1954. The Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act') came into being much later and has been amended many times. In view of the letter dated 03.06.1961 of Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India has sold the surplus rural evacuee lands and houses/taurs to the Punjab Government. The Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act') came into being much later and has been amended many times. In view of the letter dated 03.06.1961 of Government of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India has sold the surplus rural evacuee lands and houses/taurs to the Punjab Government. Thereafter Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Rehabilitation (Department of Rehabilitation) vide letter dated 29.03.1963 transferred the acquired evacuee urban built up properties to the Government of Punjab, which includes houses, shops, kholas/sites. There is no reference to the shops in the letter dated 03.06.1961. The shops in urban areas were vested in the State Government in pursuance of letter dated 29.03.1963. 10. It appears that Bholath is a semi-urban area as the same is stated to be sub-tehsil. Otherwise also, even if area is not an urban area can a shop be treated as a house which has been transferred to the State Government? Once the property is vesting in the State Government for the first time either in pursuance of letter dated 03.06.1961 or letter dated 29.03.1963, under what provisions or what instructions press notes were issued and proceedings were initiated? 11. State has not filed any reply nor any instructions or Rules have been cited before this Court under which the auction was conducted or auction sale was ordered. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, impugned orders are set aside and case is remanded to respondent No. 4 - Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar, to categorically record a finding that under what instructions or notification by the State Government or the Central Government sale of shop by open auction can be ordered or under what provisions the same can be allotted to a person who is in its unauthorized possession. Since neither transfer nor auction sale is valid, the authority shall re-examine the matter afresh with regard to sale and transfer as per instructions. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before respondent No. 4 - Assistant Registrar (L)-cum-Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar on 19.12.2014. Disposed of.