- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated January 11, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.4196 of 1984) filed by the father of the appellants challenging the auction of the land in dispute under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Package Deal Properties Act') and the Rules made thereunder, in favour of one Joginder Pal, predecessor of respondents No.7 to 12, has been dismissed.
(2.) In this case, the property in dispute, which was part of the Package Deal Properties, has been disposed of by the authorities under the Package Deal Properties Act, by restricted public auction on 17.10.1975. Against the reserved price of Rs. 1,620/- the property was sold in auction in favour of Joginder Pal for Rs.17,800/-. No objection to the said public auction was filed within the period of one month. Therefore, under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules), the said sale was confirmed by the competent authority, i.e., Additional Settlement Officer (Sales), on 5.12.1975. Against the order of confirmation, a review application under Section 11 of the Package Deal Properties Act was filed by the appellants before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner alleging therein that the order of confirmation suffers from clerical and accidental slip as there was a house of the appellants in the land put to auction, which should not have been included in the land put to sale. The said review application was dismissed by the Sales Commissioner on 30.7.1976.
(3.) Against the said order, the appellants filed a revision before the Chief Sales Commissioner under Section 10 of the Package Deal Properties Act. In the revision, it was contended that the appellants had constructed a house comprising five rooms on two kanals of land, which was a part of the land sold to Joginder Pal, therefore, to that extent, the auction/sale in favour of Joginder Pal was illegal. The Chief Sales Commissioner rejected the said contention while holding that the appellants did not make any application for transfer of the area on the basis of possession as required under the Rules, therefore, they could not be provided any relief in the matter. The second contention of the appellants that as per the Sales Programme, the auction was to take place on 15/16.10.1975, but it was held on 17.10.1975, therefore, on this score alone, the sale could not be sustained, was also rejected by the Chief Sales Commissioner on the ground that the Tehsildar (Sales) under Rule 6 (viii) of the Rules has been empowered to adjourn the sale to a specific date and hour by recording the reasons. Proviso to Clause (viii) of Rule 6 provides that where the sale is adjourned for a period exceeding fifteen days, a fresh notice shall be given. It was held by the Chief Sales Commissioner that since in the present case the Tehsildar (Sales) had adjourned the sale for one day after recording the reasons, therefore, there was no illegality in the sale and no fresh notice for the same was required. While coming to the said conclusion, the Chief Sales Commissioner dismissed the said revision petition vide order dated 6.6.1978.;