JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner, claims, the, setting aside of the order made on 5.12.2009. The afore order was made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation, Shimla-2, in Case No. 1/2005-CSC, titled as, "State of H.P. versus Des Raj". Through the afore order, conveyance deed, No. 8-10-NTK, dated 9.1.2001, regarding Evacuee Land property comprised in Khata No. 231, Khatauni No. 329/33, Khasra No. 174/1, presently khasra No. 174/2/7/1 and Khasra No. 170/1, measuring 752.33 Square Meters, as issued to Des Raj, S/o Chandu Ram, R/o Ward No. 3-Nurpur, District Kangra, was declared to be fake. Moreover, it was also declared, that the afore fakeness, rather became acquired by the alluded sale deed, as the sale consideration, was not deposited, in the treasury concerned, and also arose, from the factum of there being no office record, with respect to the making of the afore sale.

2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends, with much vigor, before this Court, that issuance of sale certificate, borne in Annexure P-1, is supported by statutory provisions, borne in Section 20-(a), of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Provisions (supra), as carried in the Act, are extracted hereinafter:

"20 (a) by sale of such property to a displaced person or any association of displaced persons whether incorporated or not, or to any other person, whether the property is sold by public auction or otherwise."

On the basis of the afore statutory provision, as, apposite to the extant lis, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, contends with much vigor, before this Court, (i) that since the writ petitioner was a displaced person, hence there was no necessity of his applying, to the competent authority, for allotment or sale of evacuee land, to him. He also submits that sale to him, through public auction of evacuee/custodian property, as is the writ property, hence reflected in the revenue records, and, also when it is echoed in the revenue records, to be owned by the Central Government, rather comes to be elothed with statutory protection, since he became declared, the, highest bidder, in a sale auction, held by the Officer concerned, and, on conclusion of public auction, issued sale certificate, borne in Annexure P-1, became issued, vis-à-vis, him.

3. However, the respondents in their reply on affidavit, contend with much vigor, before this Court, that sale certificate, borne in Annexure P-1, and, as issued with respect to the writ property, is ingrained with the deepest vice of voidness, as it is not supported by any existing records, rather supporting the conduct of public auction, by the officer, who drew Annexure P-1. Moreover, it is also contended in the reply, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent, that even the sale consideration, mentioned in the sale certificate, became not deposited by the Officer, who purportedly conducted the sale through public auction of the writ property, and, that criminal proceedings are drawn against the officer concerned.

4. Now, for construing the vigor of the afore made submission, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and, as becomes anchored upon the mandate (supra) of Section 20 (a) of the Act, this Court, is, of the opinion, that sale, through execution of a sale deed, of custodian property to displaced persons, as the writ petitioner claims is, hence to be made only, when an application in respect thereto, is prior thereto rather hence moved by a displaced person, before the competent statutory authority. However, the respondents in their reply on affidavit, meted to paragraph-4, of the writ petition, contend with utmost formidability, that the writ petitioner, did not move any application, before the competent authority, for seeking execution of a sale deed, in his favour, by the authorities concerned. The afore