The central legal point established in the judgment is that the confirmation of an auction sale is crucial for determining the availability of the land for allotment under subsequent policies or provisions.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - In the instant petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue Punjab, vide which the order dated 1.10.1997 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was set aside and the auction sale made in favour of Gajinder Singh (father of respondent No. 2) on 23.1.1968 was held to be valid and the claim made by the petitioners for allotment of the land in question on the basis of the Press Note issued by the Punjab Government on 18.4.1968 was found to be without any merit.

2. This case has a long and chequered history. The land in question measuring 7 Marlas which comprised in plot No. 34 min. (southern portion) situated in village Bhunga is admittedly a package deal property owned by the State Government and the same was liable to be disposed of according to the provisions of Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules made thereunder. On 23.1.1968, the aforesaid land was put to auction and one Gajinder Singh (father of respondent No. 2) gave the highest bid for that land. His bid was accepted and on 12.3.1968 the said auction sale was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. Against the aforesaid auction sale, the objections were filed by the father of the petitioners, namely, Kehar Singh and those were dismissed and the sale was confirmed vide order dated 12.3.1968. Against that order no appeal was filed.

3. On 18.4.1968, the Punjab Government issued a Press Note according to which the land comprised in Taur adjacent to the house of a person could be transferred to that person on reserve price. On the basis of the aforesaid Press Note, the aforesaid Kehar Singh made an application dated 25.4.1968 to the authority for transfer of the land in dispute measuring 7 Marlas which was already sold to Gajinder Singh by public auction. His application was rejected as the aforesaid property was not available for transfer as the same had already been sold in public auction. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Kehar Singh filed an appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Jalandhar on 23.1.1968 against the auction of the land in question and its subsequent confirmation on 12.3.1968 and for rejecting his claim for allotment of the land in dispute to him under the aforesaid Press Note dated 18.4.1968. The Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 22.4.1969 dismissed the appeal filed by Kehar Singh. Against the order, a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was filed and the same was also dismissed on 6.11.1973.

4. Still feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, Kehar Singh filed C.W.P. No. 564 of 1974 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 5.1.1982 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not competent to confirm the auction sale and only the Sales Commissioner was having jurisdiction in this regard, and the matter was remanded to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur with the following observations :-

"Shri S.K. Sayal, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has stated at the bar that the Settlement Commissioner had not been conferred the powers of confirming the sale and, therefore, his order confirming the sale which has been impugned on this ground in this court is clearly without jurisdiction and that his order may be quashed and the matter may be remitted to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur on whom the power of confirmation of the sale has been conferred by the Package Deal Properties Act and the Rules. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and the case is sent back to the Sales Commissioner, Hoshiarpur who will decide after hearing both the parties. The parties are d