- (1.) Arjan Singh Lambardar of Patti Bhagu Singh in village Ghalib Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, had filed a writ petition in this Court, challenging the auction of his land measuring 6-1/2 acres for realising a sum of Rs. 14804.69 as arrears of Governments dues inasmuch as he had not deposited the land revenue allegedly collected by him. The land was put to auction on 26th June, 1970. Surjit Singh and Dalip Singh, respondent, offered the highest bid. The writ petitioner Arjan Singh had filed objections against the auction alleging that the highest bid offered was extremely low and further that proclamation had not been made in accordance with the Rules. The Commissioner, Jullundur Division vide order dated 4th March, 1971, dismissed the objections.
(2.) Before the learned single Judge, the petitioner had argued that he was not a defaulter in term of section 3(8) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) and as such his land was wrongly put to auction. It may be noticed here that prior to the amendment of section 3(8) of the Act, in the year 1974, the definition of 'defaulter' was as under :- "defaulter' means a person liable for an arrears of land revenue and includes a person who is responsible as surely for the payment of the arrear." After the amendment in the year 1974, section 3(8) reads as under :- "Defaulter' means a person liable for an arrears of land revenue and include a person who is responsible as surely for the payment of the arrears; and a village officer who collects the land revenue or any other sum recoverable as land revenue and does not pay the same to the State Government in accordance with the rules framed under the Act." The learned Single Judge held that according to the amended definition of "defaulter" as introduced by the amendment of section 3(8) in the year 1974, the petitioner would be covered, and, therefore, his land had been rightly sold by auction for recovering the Government dues. This judgment was given on 6th January, 1982. Arjan Singh died on 30th January, 1982 and his son Shamsher Singh dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, filed the present Latters Patent Appeal.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amended definition of "defaulter" could not be applied in the case of the appellant's father inasmuch as when the alleged default was committed, he did not fall with in the definition on "defaulter", and no retrospective effect can be given to the definition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the private respondents i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4, has submitted that in fact by virtue of the earlier agreements to sell dated 3rd October, 1961 and 16th September, 1961, they have already purchased the land from the appellant's father and had paid him the money and had also got the land redeemed from the mortgagees by paying them the mortgage amount, and, accordingly, got into possession since then. According to the learned counsel, since the land was being put to auction, respondents had to purchase it to save their possession by paying again to the Government. He also pointed out that the learned Commissioner had also allowed a chance to the appellant's father to deposit the money but he failed to do so. It will be relevant to reproduce para 2 of the written statement filed by respondents No. 3 and 4, which is as under :- "The answering-respondent purchased this property in public auction according to law. In fact the answering respondents have to pay the sale price twice over. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 3rd October, 1961 and 19th September, 1986 vide which he agreed to sell land measuring 29 Kanals 5 marlas and 22 Kanals 18 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 7100/- and Rs. 5500/- respectively. Rs. 6380/- were paid to the petitioner and the mortgage amount to the tune of Rs. 6220/- was paid to the previous mortgagee by the answering respondent and the land was got redeemed. In the mean time, the petitioner was declared to be a defaulter and the same land which had been agreed to be sold to the respondent was attached and put to sale and the answering respondents had no option but to buy the land at the public auction otherwise the amount already paid by them would have been lost. In fact, the petitioner has gained double benefit. Firstly, he recovered the sale price from the answering respondents and subsequently the answering respondents had to purchase the land at the public auction. The petitioner has been able to cheat the answering respondents as well as the State.";