Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of C. W. Nos. 1299, 2298 and 2634 of 1977, as counsel for the parties are agreed that common questions arise therein.
(2.) IN all the three cases, the private Respondents were allowed to purchase the land as Harijans in restricted auctions, and in violation of the conditions of auction not to transfer the property for a period of ten years, they effected transfers, on account of the transfers made in violation of the terms and conditions of the auction, notices were issued to the Petitioners, who are transferees from the original auction purchasers, as also to the auction -purchasers and after hearing them the auction sales in favour of the private Respondents were cancelled by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur. The subsequent transferees have come up in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to impugn the orders of cancellation of the auction sales. All other points are covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in C. W. No. 2861 of 1976 - Joga Singh v. Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, C. W. No. 2861 of 1976. decided on 4th of October, 1979, wherein it was held that the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, has the power to cancel the auction sale if the original auction -purchaser effects transfer within the period of ten years and, therefore, those questions are no longer open to the Petitioners in these writ petitions.
(3.) THE next point urged by the counsel for the Petitioners is that the impugned orders are passed after the enforcement of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act), and the power of cancellation under Section 10 could be exercised by the Chief Sales Commissioner provided he was appointed as such by issue of a notification in the official Gazette as provided under Section 3 of the Act. He has further pointed out that at the time the order was passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner in these cases, no notification had been published under Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be said to have been passed by a duly authorised person. He has invited my attention to Gazette Notification No. 11696 -A/ EA dated 17th of June, 1976, published on 11th of May, 1979, whereunder power under Section 3(1) of the Act were conferred on the Deputy Secretor Rehabilitation, as Chief Sales Commissioner, to the State of Punjab for purposes of performing the functions assigned to him by or under the Act in relation to the package deal properties. The learned Counsel submits that the date of publication of the notification would confer the power for pas sing an order under the Act and not the date of notification which is almost three years prior to the date of publication of the notification.;