Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In the instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, vide which the order dated 1.10.1997 (Annexure P5) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was set aside and the auction sale made in favour of Ga-jinder Singh (father of respondent No. 2) on 23.1.1968 was held to be valid and the claim made by the petitioner for allotment of the land in question on the basis of the Press Note issued by the Punjab Government on 18.4.1968 was found to be without any merit.
2. This case has long and chequered history. The land in question measuring 7 Marias which comprised in plot No. 34 min. (southern portion) situated in village Bhunga is admittedly a package deal property owned by the State Government and the same was liable to be disposed of according to the provisions of Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the rules made thereunder. On 23.1.1968, the aforesaid land was put to auction and one Gajinder Singh (father of respondent No. 2) gave the highest bid for that land. His bid was accepted and on 12.3.1968 the said auction sale was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Against the aforesaid auction sale, the objections were filed by the father of the petitioners, namely, Kehar Singh and those were dismissed and the sale was confirmed vide order dated 12.3.1968. Against that order no appeal was filed.
3. On 18.4.1968, the Punjab Government issued a Press Note according to which the land comprised in Taur adjacent to the house of a person could be transferred to that person on reserve price. On the basis of the aforesaid Press Note, the aforesaid Kehar Singh made an application dated 25.4.1968 to the authority for transfer of the land in dispute measuring 7 Marias which was already sold to Gajinder Singh by public auction. His application was rejected as the aforesaid property was not available for transfer as the same had already been sold in public auction. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Kehar Singh filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar on 23.1.1968 against the auction of the land in question and its subsequent confirmation on 12.3.1968 and for rejecting his claim for allotment of the land in dispute to him under the aforesaid Press Note dated 18.4.1968. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 22.4.1969 dismissed the appeal filed by Kehar Singh. Against the order, a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was filed and the same was also dismissed on 6.11.1973.
4. Still feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, Kehar Singh filed C.W.P. No. 564 of 1974 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 5.1.1982 (Annexure PI) on the ground that Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not competent to confirm the auction sale and only the Sales Commissioner was having jurisdiction in this regard, and the matter was remanded to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur with the following observations:-
'Shri S.K. Sayal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has stated at the bar that the Settlement Commissioner had not been conferred the powers of confirming the sale and, therefore, his order confirming the sale which has been impugned on this ground in this court is clearly without jurisdiction and that his order may be quashed and the matter may be remitted to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on whom the power of confirmation of the sale has been conferred by the Package Deal Properties Act and the Rules. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and the case is sent back to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur who will decide after hearing both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before him on the 5th of February, 1982.'
5. The Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, vide his order dated 29.4.1983 set aside the auction sale and ordered that the land in question be allotted to Kehar Singh on the basis of Press Note dated 18.4.1968 issued by the Punjab Government. Against that order, the auction purchaser Gajinder Singh filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed on 12.12.1983. Then he filed revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was allowed on 25.5.1988 and the matter was once again remanded to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur directing him to decide the matter in accordance with the order passed by the High Court, as while transferring the land to Kehar Singh under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968, the Sales Commissioner had not considered the aspect regarding confirmation of the auction sale deed 23.1.1968. After the remand, the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 16.8.1988 confirmed the sale auction in favour of Gajinder Singh, finding no illegality or infirmity in the conduct of the aforesaid auction sale and consequently the claim of Kehar Singh for allotment of the land on the basis of Press Note was declined.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Kehar Singh again filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner. The said appeal was dismissed on 23.2.1989 while observing as under:-
'I have considered the arguments tendered by the parties, and have also perused the record placed on the file. The brief facts of the case have been submitted in para 2 of this order. This disputed plot was auctioned on 23.1.68 and, therefore, was not available for any further allotment in terms of press-note dated 18.4.68. Thus, any application made in pursuance of press note dated 18.4.68 has no meaning, as the property was no longer available in the pool for allotment. If Kehar Singh was interested in retaining the property he should have participated In the auction held on 23.1,68, but the same was not done by him. I am also supported in this respect by ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cited by the counsel for the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.'
7. Still feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Kehar Singh filed revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who vide his order dated 1.10.1997 set aside the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner. According to him, the policy for allotment of land on the basis of possession was of long standing but it did not include 'Taurs' which were ultimately included in the policy on 18.4.1968. Therefore, Kehar Singh had a subsisting right for allotment as he was in possession of the Taur in question from a long time. The learned Commissioner did not subscribe to the view of the Chief Sales Commissioner that with the finalisation of the auction, right of any other person in the plot stood extinguished. Consequently, the auction sale in favour of Gajinder Singh was cancelled and the earlier order dated 29.4,1983 (Annexure P2) passed by the Sales Commissioner regarding allotment of land in favour of Kehar Singh was confirmed.
8. Against the aforesaid order, the son of the auction purchaser Gajinder Singh fileda petition under Section 15(1) of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Revenue,Punjab. The Learned Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P7) set aside the order dated 1.10.1997 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and confirmed the auction sale in favour of the Gajinder Singh while rejecting The claim of Kehar Singh for allotment of land on the basis of the Press Note dated 18.4.1968 on the following grounds:-
(a) The land in dispute was sold in open auction to Gajinder Singh on 23.1.1968 on a price which was above the reserve price. The said auction was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, though according to the Act and the Rules, the Settlement Officer was the competent authority to confirm the auction sale.
(b) The Hon'blc High Court vide its order dated 5.1.1982 set aside the confirmation of auction sale in question on the ground that the Assistant Settlement Officer was having no jurisdiction to confirm the sale, therefore, the matter was remanded to the Sales Commissioner. Therefore, the only question which was required to be decided by the Sales Commissioner was whether there was any infirmity in the sale which warranted its setting aside or not. Instead of looking into that aspect of the matter, the Sales Commissioner proceeded to go into extraneous considerations while making allotment of the land in question in favour of Kehar Singh on the basis of the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. While observing that the land in dispute measuring 7 Marias is adjacent to the land of Kehar Singh and if this land was not allotted to him, then he will not be able to utilise the remaining land which was allotted to him by the Department.
(c) Actually the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the sequence of events. The Hon'ble High Court has set aside the order confirming the sale auction and not the orders confirming the auction per-se. The point before the Commissioner was whether the auction was in order or not. If it was in order,it was required to be confirmed and if it was not in order, it was required to be set aside.
(d) The auction of the disputed land took place much prior to the issuance of Press Note dated 18.4.1968 and this land was not available for allotment under the aforesaid Press Note.
(e) The finding of the Commissioner that the disputed portion of Taur No. 34 was essential to ensure the utility of Taur No. 33 and also of the northern portion of Taur No. 34, is wrong. The said land of Kehar Singh is having independent access.
(f) Kehar Singh is having no right to transfer the land in question on the basis of the possession under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968.
(g) It has also been found that Kehar Singh abandoned the village in the year 1986 and sold his entire holding in the village. In fact that cases are being filed on behalf of Kehar Singh and after his death, on behalf of his L.Rs. by one Jasbir Singh son of Kirpal Singh who holds power of attorney on behalf of the L.Rs. of Kehar Singh. Actually, the L.Rs. of Kehar Singh are not residing in the village and they have sold the entire property situated in village Bhuga, including agricultural land and 'sikani' property and shifted to Delhi. Actually, Jasbir Singh, the power of attorney holder is fighting the proxy litigation as he claimed that he had purchased the rights in the land in question from the legal representatives of Kehar Singh.'
8. Jasbir Singh has filed the instant writ petition as attorney of the sons of Kehar Singh impugning the aforesaid order dated 31.10.2000 passed by the Financial Commissioner.
9. Shri R,K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners made four submissions before this Court. Firstly, he submitted that Kehar Singh was legally entitled for allotment of the land in dispute on the basis of the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. When the order of confirmation of sale made in favour of the auction purchaser Gajinder Singh was set aside by the High Court vide its order dated 5.1.1982, the matter became open and on that date, the land in dispute was available for allotment to the person having possession under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968, Therefore, the entire reasoning given by the learned Financial Commissioner, that when Kehar Singh made an application for allotment of the land on 25.4.1968 under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968, the land in dispute was not available, is wholly erroneous.
10. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in dispute is part of Plot No. 34 which consists of 16 Marlas, 9 Marlas portion of the said plot was already allotted to Kehar Singh by the Department and the remaining area measuring 7 Marias was in his possession and if the said 7 Marias plot is not allotted to the predecessors of Kehar Singh, they cannot enjoy the area which was allotted to them earlier by the Department. The learned counsel further submitted that from the last many years Kehar Singh was making application for allotment of the land in question but the same was not allotted to him as there was no policy statement for allotment of the Taur. When the Government issued Press Note dated 18.4.1968 for allotment of the Taur, he immediately made an application for allotment of the disputed land. Therefore, instead of auctioning the same, the disputed land should have been allotted to him as a right was accrued to Kehar Singh under the aforesaid Press Note on the basis of his long possession.
11. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that actually Kehar Singh was a. displaced person and he was allotted only 9 marlas of land whereas as per his entitlement, he was entitled for more area and in view of the said fact the land in dispute should have been allotted to him so that deficiency in area could have been made good.
12. Fourthly, learned counsel further submitted that Jasbir Singh, general power of attorney holder is now in possession of the disputed land as he has purchased the property of Kehar Singh from his legal representatives. After purchase, he has raised construction over the land in question by investing huge amount. Therefore, in these circumstances the land in question should be allotted to him instead of confirming the auction sale. He is ready to pay the price of the plot as per the policy statement of the Department.
13. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioners. All the four contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are having no substance. In the instant controversy, two questions are involved; firstly, whether there was any infirmity in the auction sale dated 2.1.1968 and whether such auction sale was liable to be confirmed or not; and secondly whether Kehar Singh or his successors-in-interest are entitled for allotment of the land in question on the basis of their possession under the press Note dated 18.4.1968. The counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the conduct of the auction sale dated 23.1.1968 nor at any point of time any authority had found any infirmity or illegality in the conduct of the auction sale. Undisputedly, the property was sold in the open auction at a price more than the reserve price. This Court vide its order dated 5.1.1982 had set aside they confirmation of the auction sale only on the ground that the confirmation was made by the incompetent authority and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to decide the matter after hearing the parties. Therefore, before the competent authority, i.e., Sales Commissioner, the question was whether the sale was to be confirmed or not. But the Sales Commissioner without complying with the directions of this Court has allotted the land in question to Kehar Singh vide his order dated 29.4.1983 on the basis of the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. He did not consider at all the aspect regarding confirmation of the auction sale. The confirmation of the auction sale is having a relevance for allotment of the land to Kehar Singh on the basis of his possession under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. If the sale is confirmed which admittedly, took place prior to the issuance of the aforesaid Press Note than the net result would be that the said property was not available for allotment to any person under the aforesaid Press Note. If the auction sale is not confirmed then definitely the said property would become available for allotment. In the inslant case, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar rightly remanded the case to the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 25.5.1988 to consider this aspect of the matter whether the auction sale made in favour of the auction purchaser Gajinder Singh is liable to be confirmed or not. The observations made by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in his order dated 25.5.1988, require to be mentioned here as they are very significant, therefore, they are reproduced below:-
'The matter was to be adjudicated upon again by Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur who was the competent authority either to confirm or de-confirm the sale. Therefore, it was the incumbent duty of Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur to pass orders on validity or otherwise of the sale. It was not for him to examine the whole matter again and go into extraneous matters which were outside the scope of the brief as given by the High Court. I conclude that Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur has exceeded his jurisdiction and has not confined himself to the brief given to him by the High Court. I, therefore, set aside the orders of Sales Commissioner and CSC and remand the case back to Sales commissioner, Hoshiarpur and direct him to act in accordance with the orders of the High Court. To sum up, he will first pass orders regarding confirmation or otherwise of auction dated 23.1.1968.'
14. When the matter was considered by the Sales Commissioner after remand, the auction sale made in favour of Gajidner Singh was confirmed vide order dated 16.8.1988. The said order was confirmed by the Chief Sales Commissioner. The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 1.10.1997 has illegally and arbitrarily set aside the aforesaid orders passed by the Sales Commissioner as well as the Chief Sales Commissioner and passed the order in favour of Kehar Singh for allotment of the land in question on the basis of his possession under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. The reasonings given by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 1.10.1997 are wholly erroneous. His logic thai since the sale was not confirmed till 1983 and the matter regarding confirmation of the auction sale was pending, therefore, it was open for the Sales Commissioner to consider the claim of Kehar Singh for allotment of the land in question on the basis of his possession under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. as he made the application for allotment under the said Press Note on 25.4.1968. This reasoning of the learned Commissioner is not tenable. When an auction sale is to be confirmed, it will always be confirmed from the date of auction, even if the sale is to be confirmed in the year 1983 and subsequent thereto, the confirmation will relate back to the date of auction. Therefore, the relevant date is when the auction took place. If the land in question is not available for allotment under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968, then the question of considering the claim of Kehar Singh or his successor-in-interest does not arise. Once the sale is confirmed, whether it was confirmed after 18.4.1968, the auction sale will deem to be confirmed from the date of auction. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the claim put forth by Kehar Singh or his predecessors for allotment of the land in question under the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. The learned Financial Commissioner has discussed this aspect of the matter in detail and I find no infirmity or illegality in the said order. In this regard, the learned Financial Commissioner has observed as under:-
'To my mind the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the sequence of events. The Hon'ble High Court had set aside the order confirming the auction sale and not the orders confirmed the auction per-se. The point before the decision makers, therefore, as correctly observed by an earlier order of the Commissioner dated 25.5.1988 was, whether the auction was in order or not. If it was in order it was required to be confirmed and if it was not in order it was required to be set aside. The auction price was admittedly well above the reserve price. The entire price of Rs. 300/- also stood paid soon after and a sale certificate also stood issued in favour of Gajinder Singh. It has been brought out in the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner dated 23.2.1989 that Kehar Singh could not give satisfactory explanation for not participating in the auction. No doubt, the order confirming the sale was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court but there was no adverse finding about the manner in which the auction was conducted. The petitioner by participating in the auction and depositing the requisite amount much before the Press Note dated 18.4.1968 was issued had acquired a vested interest in the property and this cannot be taken away merely on account of subsequent change in the policy of the Government. It is admitted by the respondent that the 'taurs' were allowed to be transferred on possession basis only vide letter dated 18.4.1968. On this legal point alone, therefore, the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside.'
15. I have also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Jasbir Singh, general power of attorney, who has purchased the property of Kehar Singh from his legal representatives, has raised some construction on the land in question, therefore, the land in question should be allotted to him. In my view, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Merely because Jasbir Singh, general power of attorney has purchased the land of Kehar Singh, it does not give him any right for allotment of the land in question on the basis of the Press Note dated 18.4.1968. Jasbir Singh cannot have any right for allotment of the land in question.
16. I have also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding allotment of the land in question of Kehar Singh on the basis of his unsatisfied claim as displaced person. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised this contention for the first time at the time of arguments. No such plea was earlier raised before the authorities under the Act when the matter was considered at the various levels. Even in the instant writ petition, nothing has been mentioned and no material has been placed on record in this regard. Therefore, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitions that Kehar Singh was having some right on the land in question being displaced person.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the instant writ petitionand the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.