JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, by which the sale of land through a restricted auction has been set aside. A few facts may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THERE are three pieces of land measuring 31 kanals, 14 kanals 16 marlas and 14 kanals 11 marlas, respectively. These were sold on August 27, 1996 for Rs. 38,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, and Rs. 17,000/-, respectively. The sales were challenged by respondent No. 2 on two-fold basis. Firstly, it was alleged that he had been wrongly excluded from participation. Secondly, he contended that the land was worth much more and that he was willing to pay Rs. 5,000/- in addition to the amount for which each of the three pieces had been sold. On January 13, 1997, the Sales Commissioner accepted the claim of the second respondent and set aside the sales. The petitioners appealed. Vide order dated September 10, 1997, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, under Section 10(4) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Vide order dated April 20, 1999, the Commissioner remitted the matter to the Sales Commissioner to verify the facts. He gave a further direction that in case Lachhman Singh was proved to be a resident of the village, he would be allowed to participate in the auction. This order was challenged by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated April 25, 2000, the Financial Commissioner has held that the auctions had been made in violation of the Government policy and directions. She has held that these were "rightly set aside". Directions for the refund to money to the petitioners have been given. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. M.S. Kang, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the second respondent was not a resident of the village. He was not entitled to participate in the auction. Thus, he had no locus standi to challenge the auctions. Secondly, it has been contended that the Financial Commissioner has erred in holding that there was a ban on the auctions. In fact, a large number of auctions had taken place and the premises, on which the order has been passed, are non-existent.;