- (1.) The petitioners challenge the decision of the authorities passed under the Haryana Sale of Surplus Properties Rules. These rules have been framed for surplus evacuee property, which were not required for allotment to unsatisfied claimants and which had been purchased by the State Government from the Central Government under package deal.
(2.) The challenge by the petitioners was in respect of claim in relation to 94 kanals 3 marlas of evacuee property, which had been originally allotted to one Gian Kaur and when she did not take possession, the same was resumed and granted originally on lease for a period of five years commencing from 12.05.1957. After the completion of the said period, the property was again leased for a period of 20 years on 02.03.1962. It appears that even this lease was purported to be cancelled by two orders on 03.08.0962 and 27.09.1962. After the cancellation, Government is purported to have allotted the property to one Bishan Singh in the year 1963. Bishan Singh in turn purported to have sold the property to respondents No.4 to 8 herein. The petitioners, aggrieved at the cancellation even before the expiry of the tenure of lease, filed CWP No.383 of 1964 against the State and respondents No.4 to 8, who attempted to stake a claim by the purchase from Bishan Singh. It appears during the pendency of the writ petition itself, the allotment made to Bishan Singh was cancelled on 26.11.1966. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed on 25.03.1968 finding that the petitioners'. lease could not have been cancelled during the tenure of lease. An appeal filed by the State as well as by respondents No.4 to 8 was dismissed, affirming the decision taken in the writ petition.
(3.) The fresh problems arose for the petitioners when the State effected a sale of the property to respondents No.4 to 8, who based their claims as bona fide purchasers on certain press releases made by the Punjab Rehabilitation Department to protect the bona fide transferees from "unscrupulous persons, who after obtaining allotment had sold to third parties". This sale to the vendees is the subject of challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, who claimed that as occupants of the property had a superior claim to the property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to Rule 3 of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties as the basis for his claim: "Mode of sale of property. Any surplus evacuee property purchased by the State Government may be disposed of in any of the manners, set out below: - i) By public auction; ii) By inviting tenders; iii) By transfer to such class of occupants and at such price as the State Government may by general or special order specify; iv) By transfer at agreed price to other Government Departments, Local Bodies including Panchayats, Block Samities and Zila Parishads, Industrial concerns, Companies and other private institutions for public, industrial and any other common purpose." The learned counsel also points out to me the procedure for the transfer of surplus evacuee property as contained in Rule 7 and makes particular reference to Rule 7(b): "7. Procedure for the transfer of surplus evacuee property at fixed rates. (a) xxx xxx xxxx (b) The eligibility of every applicant shall be determined by the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar(s) strictly in accordance with the entries in the Revenue record and no oral evidence with regard to possession of the applicant shall be allowed to be adduced." According to him, the sale could have been made only to persons in possession and as original lessees, whose possession was an admitted fact, the property could not have been sold to respondents No.4 to 8.;