Notam Singh and others vs The Commissioner, Jullundur Divn. and others

In this writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner have impugned the order dated February 24, 1981 passed by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur (Respondent No. 1) under S. 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (for short, the Act) whereby he has refused to entertain the revision petition against the order of the Sale Commissioner, Gurdaspur (Respondent No. 2) dated October 22, 1979.

In order to appreciate the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to a few relevant facts as unfolded in the pleadings of the parties.

Respondent No. 4 purchased land measuring 47 Kanats 3 Marias in restricted auction held on November 11, 1966. The Tehsildar (Sales), Gurdaspur (Respondent No. 3) cancelled the restricted auction vide order dated February 20, 1969. Respondent No. 4 successfully assailed the order of Tehsildar (Sales) cancelling the auction sale before the Sales Commissioner, Gurdaspur. The appeal was allowed vide order dated October 12, 1979. During the pendency of the appeal, the writ petitioner No. 1 moved an application for being impleaded as a party to the appeal. The application was rejected on the ground that he had neither participated in the restricted auction nor challenged the same. Respondent No. 4 was allowed to deposit the balance sale price with interest within one month. Sale certificate No. 312/ R/ G 268 was issued by the Tehsildar (Sales) in favour of respondent No. 4. Proprietary rights were conferred on him on October 12, 1982. Petitioner No. 1 and his son aggrieved against the order of the Sales Commissioner dated October 12, 1979 whereby former''s application for being impleaded as a party to the appeal titled as "Ram Lal v. Punjab State" was rejected, preferred revision petition under S. 15 of the Act before respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision petition holding that the petitioners ought to have approached the Chief Sales Commissioner and not the Commissioner Jullundur Division, Jullundur. He was of the opinion that the residual powers of the Commissioner oi the Division under S. 15 of the Act can be invoked where the aggrieved party has no other remedy under the law. On merits, he held that the Sales Commissioner was right in rejecting the application of the petitioner No. 1 for being impleaded as a party to the appeal, as he had neither participated in the restricted auction nor had he appealed against the auction purchase by respondent No. 4. The Sales Commissioner allowed respondent No. 4 to deposit the balance sale price with interest within one month. Respondent No. 1 did not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the Sales Commissioner and dismissed the revision petition. It is the validity of this order which has been challenged in this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tehsildar (Sales), who had conducted the restricted auction in favour of respondent No- 4, was not validly appointed under the Act and the auction conducted by him stands vitiated. The petitioners have not placed any material on record in support of the contention raised. There is no material that on the date when the auction was conducted by Tehsildar (Sales), he was not competent to do so. The judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petition No. 3929 of 1980 (Surinder Singh v. The Sales Commissioner, Rehabilitalion Department, Pubjab Jullund-er and others), decided on Januarys, 1981, is of no avail. The petitioners had to establish that on the date when the auction was conducted, the Tehsildar (Sales) was not validly authorised to do so. In the absence of any material on record, the plea deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, this plea was not raised before the Sales Commissioner under the Act and respondent No. 1 in revision petition preferred u/S. 15 of the Act. It is not permissible in law for the petitioners to raise a new point in the writ petition. The point is not merely a point of law but it has to be adjudicated upon on the material produced. 1 am of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be allowed to urge in the writ petition for the first time that the Tehsildar (Sales), who conducted the auction in favour of respondent No. 4, was not competent to do so on the date when he conducted the auction since this point was not raised before the authorities below. Even on merits, this plea has not been substantiated. So, on both these counts, the plea deserves to be rejected. No meaningful argument was raised by the petitioners that the auction sale in favour of respondent No. 4 was invalid. Restricted auction having been held to be validly conducted no exception can be taken to it in these proceedings.

For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee is assessed at Rs. 1,1000/-.

Petition dismissed.