Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) WAY back in year 1984 some evacuee surplus agricultural land was put to auction by the Naib Tehsildar, Nakodar, in which Respondent No. 3 was successful bidder. A dispute arose with regard to the auction to be carried out restrictedly or by way of a publication. Hence, laying challenge to the said auction, Petitioner filed objection application under Rule 6(a) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal), Rule 1976. Sub Divisional Officer -cum -Sales Commissioner, Nakodar by dint of order dated 11.7.1985 dismissed the objections on the ground that the Petitioner did not deposit the challenge money, a pre -requisite to impugn the auction. The said order was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Chief Sales Commissioner, Jalandhar vide order dated 8.5.1986. Still the Petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 10(4) read with Section 15(2) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar exercising the powers under the Act ibid. The said forum by virtue of order dated 6.6.1990 remanded the case to the Sales Commissioner -cum -SDO, Nakodar for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. Before the matter could be finally heard and disposed of by the Sales Commissioner, Respondent No. 3 filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh and laid challenge to the order dated 6.6.1990 ordering for remand of the case. The Financial Commissioner vide its order dated 31.1.1991 directed the Commissioner, Jallandhar Division to pass an order on merit after obtaining necessary clarifications at its own level, instead of remanding the case to the Sales Commissioner. Meanwhile, the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to their possession. Dis -satisfied with the same, the Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned State counsel have been heard. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3.
(3.) IT is a matter of record that when the impugned order dated 31.1.1991 was passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, then there was no representation for and on behalf of the present Petitioner. It is not clear as to whether they were issued notice of the petition or not? That apart, learned Counsel appearing today are ad -idem that the matter can be remanded to Respondent No. 2 -Financial Commissioner to decide on merits the petition of Respondent No. 3 afresh, after hearing both the parties.;