An administrative order affecting civil rights is not legally binding until it is formally communicated to the affected party. Consequently, the statutory bar on civil court jurisdiction is not triggered in the absence of a valid, communicated order from a competent authority.

JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (here-in-after referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellant–defendant assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.08.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Balachaur, was affirmed and the suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff stood decreed.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the respondent–plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant– State from auctioning, selling, transferring, or otherwise alienating the suit land, fully described in the headnote of the plaint, and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom.

2.1 It was averred that the suit land was originally owned by defendant No.1 and was put to public auction on 27.07.1982. The plaintiff emerged as the highest bidder, and his bid was duly accepted and confirmed in his favour. Pursuant thereto, he deposited one-fourth of the bid amount, while the balance consideration was to be paid in installments to be fixed and communicated by defendant No.2.

2.2 It was further pleaded that, consequent upon the acceptance of the bid, the plaintiff entered into possession of the suit land as an auction purchaser. The land in question being Banjar in nature, the plaintiff allegedly rendered the same cultivable by incurring an expenditure of Rs. 3,000/-.

2.3 The grievance of the plaintiff arose from the fact that the defendants had allegedly threatened to re-auction the suit land and had purportedly cancelled the auction in his favour without issuance of any prior notice or communication of any order. It was asserted that any such cancellation effected behind the back of the plaintiff was illegal, null, and void, thereby necessitating the institution of the present suit.

3. The defendants contested the suit by raising, inter alia, preliminary objections to the maintainability of the same. It was contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 16 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976, and that the suit was further liable to be dismissed for want of mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3.1 On merits, it was pleaded that the alleged sale in favour of the plaintiff was expressly subject to the approval of the Sales Commissioner. It was averred that the Sales Commissioner, vide order dated 26.10.1987, declined to approve the sale on the ground that the auction had not been conducted in accordance with the prevailing Government policy, and, therefore, the said authority was competent to cancel the sale.

3.2 It was further asserted that possession of the suit land had never been delivered to the plaintiff, as such delivery was contingent upon formal confirmation of the sale. The defendants also alleged that the plaintiff had manipulated entries in the revenue record to falsely reflect possession over the suit property.

4. Upon a comprehensive and meticulous consideration of the pleadings and the rival submissions advanced by the parties, the Court deemed it appropriate to crystallize the issues arising for adjudication and, accordingly, framed the following issues for determination:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as payed for? OPP

2. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present suit in view 2. of Section 16 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties(Disposal)Act, 1976?DD.

3. What is the effect or non-service of notice under Secti