J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) Kishori Lal petitioner No. 1 purchased plot No. 1- measuring 960 Square yards situated in the revenue estate of Chak-II Basti Guzan Jalandhar, in public auction held on 23rd April, 1959, whereas plot No. 20 was purchased by petitioner No. 2. The sale was confirmed and the sale price in both the cases was adjusted from their claims. Thus, the only formality regarding issuance of conveyance deed was to be gone through. However, on visits from time to time the petitioners found that in fact, the conveyance deed only regarding plot No. 12 was issued on 25th July, 1988. The true copy of which has been filed as Annexure P. 2. According to the petitioner, the original letter containing the conveyance deed was never delivered to him and on enquiries made from the Rehabilitation Department, he found that the letter was received back undelivered. Thus, he again applied for revalidation of the same deed in the year 1971. On 16th July, 1984, the Tehsildar cum-Managing Officer Jalandhar respondent No. 2 issued a communication to the Settlement Officer (Records) Department of Rehabilitation of New Delhi, making certain enquiries. Thereafter respondent No. 2 issued another letter on 20th July, 1984, copy Annexure P-5. When nothing was done in the matter, he called upon the Financial Commissioner (Rehabilitation) Punjab, on 6th Dec., 1984, vide representation, copy Annexure P-6. Later on, the petitioner received copy of the letter dated 10th Sept., 1985, copy Annexure P-7 written by the Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation to the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar. It was stressed in this communication that "since Kishori Lal, auction purchaser and attorney of Kailash Chander has been pressing hard for the issuance of sale deed and revalidation of deed already stands issued in his favour in respect of plot No. 12 you are, therefore, requested to kindly look into the matter personally and get the matter expedited under the rules after hearing the auction purchaser". In spite of this, nothing was done in the matter and ultimately they have filed the present writ petition dated 11th Aug., 1986.
(2.) When notice of motion was issued, the learned counsel for the State wanted time for filing the written statement. In spite of the opportunity having been granted, no written statement was filed and consequently, the writ petition was admitted on 15th May, 1987. No written statement has been filed even up till now nor anybody is present on behalf of the State to represent the respondents.
(3.) Sub rule (15) of Rule 90 of the Displaced persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, provides that "when the purchase price has been realised in full from the auction purchaser, the Managing Officer shall issue to him a sale certificate in the form specified in Appendix XXXII or XXXIII, as the case may be. A certified copy of the sale certificate shall be sent by him to the Registering Officer within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the property to which the certificate relates is situated. If the auction purchaser is a displaced person and has associated with himself any other displaced person having a verified claim whose net compensation is to be adjusted in whole or in part against the purchase price, the sale certificate shall be made out jointly in the name of all such persons and shall specify the extent of interest of each in the property." The averments made in the writ petition have not been controverted by the respondents by filing any written statement and, therefore, they will be deemed to have been admitted. Since according to the petitioners, the entire purchase price stands paid to the department, they are entitled to the conveyance deeds under the above said rules. As stated earlier, one conveyance deed was issued by the department, copy Annexure P-2, but the same never reached the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it is directed that either the sale deed issued earlier, copy Annexure P 2, relating to plot No. 20 be revalidated ora fresh deed of conveyance be issued and that a deed of conveyance regarding plot No. 20 be also issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1 under the above said rules, within three months of the order. After the said conveyance deeds are issued, the possession of the plots in dispute be delivered to the petitioners within one month thereof. The petitioners are entitled to costs which are to be realised from respondent No. 2 as he is responsible for all this delay and not coming forward to file any return to the writ petition. Though under the above said rules it is respondent No. 2 that is Tehsildar-cum Managing Officer, Jalandhar, who is to issue this conveyance deed yet respondents Nos. 1 and 2 will ensure that the needful will be done within the time allowed. Petition allowed.;