Paramjeet Singh, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) passed by Assistant Registrar (L) -cum -Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab, Jalandhar, order dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure P/5) passed by Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6) passed by Deputy Commissioner -cum -Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala and order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7) passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. Brief facts of the case are that a shop measuring 510 sq. feet bearing No. 43 is situated in village Bholath, Sub Tehsil Bholath, Tehsil and District Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as 'the shop in question'). Respondent No. 5 vide application dated 16.07.1962 applied for transfer of shop in question in view of a press note dated 06.01.1960 issued by the Government of Punjab vide which the persons in unauthorized possession of such property were allowed to seek its transfer, if they were in possession prior to 31.12.1957. The said application was rejected by Naib Tehsildar Sales -cum -Managing Officer on 05.08.1963 holding that respondent No. 5 has failed to show his actual physical possession over the shop in question prior to 31.12.1957. In fact, the said shop was allotted to one Bal Kishan who remained in its continuous possession ever after 1960. Possession of respondent No. 5 over the shop in question before 1960 is not established. Against the order dated 05.08.1963 respondent No. 5 filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, which was also dismissed vide order dated 28.01.1964 and said order was never challenged, thus, attained finality. Punjab Government issued another press note dated 05.08.1962 under which respondent No. 5 vide application dated 31.12.1962 again applied for transfer of the shop in question on the basis of possession. The second press note was with regard to surplus rural houses and taurs but not for shops situated in abadi of rural areas and possession of the house/taur was required to be prior to 31.12.1960. It is pertinent to mention that Government of India vide letter No. 3(53)/Pol -II/60, Land and Rent dated 03.06.1961 transferred some properties to Punjab Government which were surplus rural houses and taurs and was never meant for the shops situated in rural areas. Vide order dated 19.07.1966 Naib Tehsildar (Sales) rejected the second application of respondent No. 5. In the meantime, vide order dated 18.06.1966 Managing Officer ordered the sale of property by way of auction. Respondent No. 5 did not challenge the order dated 18.06.1966. Ultimately auction was held on 19.07.1966 after proclamation and wide publicity by Tehsildar -cum -Managing Officer. Petitioner purchased the said shop by offering highest bid of Rs. 7005/ - against the reserve price of Rs. 2200/ - and deposited Rs. 1800/ - as earnest money equivalent to approximately 25% of the bid amount. It needs to be mentioned that 32 bids were offered at the time of auction. No objections were filed against the auction sale. The sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 30.09.1966. The said order has attained finality as it was never challenged. However, respondent No. 5 challenged the order vide which his application dated 31.01.1962 for transfer of shop in question was rejected by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) by way of appeal, which was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 31.08.1966. Respondent No. 5 challenged the order dated 31.08.1966 in revision before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who rejected the revision, however, ordered re -auction of the shop in question vide order dated 27.04.1967. Both the parties challenged the order dated 27.04.1967 under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1954 Act') before the officer exercising the powers of Central Government. The Central Government disposed of both the petitions vide order dated 06.01.1969 (Annexure P/1) and case was remanded to the Managing Officer for examining the case of respondent No. 5 under second press note dated 05.08.1962 and transfer it to him if he was found entitled thereto and refund the amount deposited by the petitioner, but if respondent No. 5 was not found entitled to transfer of the shop, the auction would stand and sale to the petitioner would not be examined afresh. The said order was challenged by the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 vide separate writ petitions in this Court. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2617 of 1970 which was partly allowed vide order dated 12.05.1980 and case was remanded to the same Managing Officer to whom it was remanded by the Central Government vide order dated 06.01.1969 with a direction to first ascertain as to whether the shop in question was or was not a package deal property. Civil Writ Petition No. 1212 of 1980 filed by respondent No. 5 was also disposed of in same terms. On remand Tehsildar (Sales) -cum -Man -aging Officer, Kapurthala vide order dated 23.06.1981 held that the shop in question was not a package deal property but an evacuee property. The case was then transferred to Assistant Registrar (L) -cum -Managing Officer, Rehabilitation Department, Jalandhar, who vide his ex parte order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4) transferred the shop in question to respondent No. 5 without controverting the findings recorded in Annexure P/3 that the shop in question is an evacuee property. Assistant Registrar (L) -cum -Managing Officer even further exceeded his jurisdiction while holding that respondent No. 5 is in possession since 1956 -57. Although, it was held in the order dated 28.01.1964 that respondent No. 5 was not in possession since 1956 -57. Prior to passing of order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P -4) respondent No. 5 made proclamation in the village that he had won over respondent No. 4 - Managing Officer, therefore the order would be passed in his favour. Therefore, petitioner moved an application for transfer of the case from respondent No. 4. Without waiting for the decision on transfer application, respondent No. 4 passed the order Annexure P/4. Petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 12.10.1981 (Annexure P/4). During the pendency of appeal, Tehsildar (Sales) issued conveyance deed in favour of respondent No. 5 on 14.12.1981 on the basis of possession. However, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28.02.1990 (Annexure P/5). Petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Chief Settlement Commissioner, Kapurthala, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.04.1991 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter petitioner filed petition under Section 33 of the 1954 Act, which has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, vide order dated 10.10.1991 (Annexure P/7). Hence, this writ petition.
(2.) IN pursuance of notice respondents appeared. Respondent No. 5 filed separate written statement contending that order dated 06.01.1969 passed by Central Government has not been intentionally annexed by the petitioner. The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by Managing Officer, Settlement Commissioner, Chief Settlement Commissioner and even the delegatee of the Central Government under Section 33 of the 1954 Act also held that shop in question has been validly transferred in favour of respondent No. 5. It is pleaded that earlier application of respondent No. 5 was rejected on the ground that he had failed to establish his possession over the shop in question prior to 31.12.1957. So the order passed by earlier authorities was not required to be challenged. Respondent No. 5 submitted second application in view of second press note dated 05.08.1962 on the basis of possession over the property prior to 31.12.1960. The auction sale in favour of the petitioner was illegal, arbitrary and property could not have been sold. Petitioner had approached the authorities under the 1954 Act but at the same time he is alleging that the property was package deal property. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) ADMITTED facts are to the effect that first press note was issued on 06.01.1960 wherein it was mentioned that persons in unauthorized possession of the property prior to 31.12.1957 would be allowed to seek its transfer in their names. Application of respondent No. 5 for transfer was rejected on 05.08.1963 and his appeal was also dismissed on 28.01.1964. Those proceedings attained finality. Thereafter second press note was issued on 05.08.1962 with regard to sale of rural houses and taurs with the condition that persons who were in possession of such property prior to 31.12.1960 could get it transferred in their name. The second application of respondent No. 5 for transfer was also rejected by the Managing Officer vide order dated 18.06.1966, which has become final. Thereafter auction was held on 19.07.1966 in which petitioner was allotted the land. The said sale was confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner on 31.09.1966, which has attained finality. However, respondent No. 5 continued to challenge the proceedings arising out of second press note regarding transfer of shop in question. The matter came upto this Court as petitioner and respondent No. 5 filed separate writ petitions.;