Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—The writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana dated 25.11.1980 by which he set aside an auction sale of the ''Package Deal'' property held on 8.1.1964.

The Naib Tehsildar (Sales), Ludhiana put to auction a land of an extent 125 kanals 17 marlas and 125 kanals 16 marlas on 8.1.1964 in accordance with the provisions of the Package Deal Rules, 1962. The Petitioner participated in the auction through her son and became the highest bidder and she, also deposited the earnest money. Immediately after the completion of the sale in the public auction, one Bhagat Singh and others filed objections filed by Bhagat Singh and others were rejected by the Settlement Officer (Sales) on 9.4.1964. Thereafter, the sales in favour of the Petitioner were confirmed on 25.1.1964. Possession was also delivered to the Petitioner and Petitioner continued to be in possession of the said land purchased by her in the public auction and also made improvements thereof Thereafter, the Government of Punjab received Some complaints against the sales of the evacuee property in the State of Punjab on the ground that some officials purchased the evacuee property in that sales conducted by the Tehsildar (Sales) in the State of Punjab. Thereafter, the Government of Punjab constituted Harchand Singh Committee to enquire into the cases of sales of evacuee property by the concerned authorities and whether the purchasers in those auctions in the garb of purchase grabbed the land. The committee submitted its report. On the basis of the report of the committee, the State of Punjab ordered the reopening of some cases u/s 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976. In pursuance of the said directions of the Government, the Chief Sales Officer issued a notice to the Petitioner to show cause why the sales in her favour should not be set aside. The Petitioner and her sons submitted their replies. The Chief Sales Officer in the impugned order dated 25.11.1980 set aside the sales in favour of the Petitioner Smt. Jaswant Kaur on the ground that the auction was knocked down in favour of the Petitioner fraudulently. In the course of the order, he further stated that there was no proper proclamation of the auction and sales were, therefore, vitiated and accordingly set aside the sales in favour of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana.

Admittedly, the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana set aside the auction under the powers conferred on him by Section 10(2) of the Punjab Package Deal Property (Disposal) Act, 1976 which reads as follows:

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power under Sub-section (1), if the Chief Sales Commissioner is satisfied that any order whether passed before or after the commencement of this Act, for the transfer of package deal property to any person, has been obtained by him by means of fraud, false representation or concealment of any material facts, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Chief Sales Commissioner may pass an order cancelling or modifying the order of such transfer.

Thus to invoke the powers conferred u/s 10(2) of the Act, the Chief Sales Commissioner must be satisfied that the purchaser of the auction played fraud or made false representation or concealed any material facts. Though the Chief Sales Commissioner stated in his order that the transfer was made fraudulently has not given any details of the fraud played by the Petitioner. The facts which constituted the alleged fraud were not stated in the order or in the notice given to the Petitioner before setting aside the sale u/s 10(2) of the Act, There is also no allegation of any false representation or concealment of any fact by the Petitioner. The fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of fact must be by the Petitioner who is a transferee or auction purchaser. If there was any irregularity in the proclamation of sale committed by the authorities that does not amount to a fraud played by the auction purchaser and it cannot be made a ground to set aside the sale. It is not every irregularity which enables the Chief Sales Commissioner to set aside the auction. In fact, objections to the auction held on 8.1 1954 were filed by Bhagat Singh and others before the Settlement Officer (Sales) who by his order dated 9.4.1964 rejected all the objections. The Chief Sales Commissioner has not referred to the grounds on which the Settlement Officer (Sales) rejected the objections raised by Bhagat Singh and other villagers. The learned Assistant Advocate General tried to argue that there was a connivance between the auction purchaser i.e. the Petitioner and the concerned officials which amounts to playing fraud on the authorities but no material has been referred to either by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana in his order or by the learned Assistant Advocate General to show that there was any connivance between the Petitioner and the authorities who conducted the sale. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no case of fraud was made out in order to invoke the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act to set aside the sale held in public auction on 8.1.1964.

The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that there was no proper proclamation of the properties for sale. But that can be made a ground to set aside the sale before confirmation only. That argument is not available when once the sale has been confirmed. As already pointed out that the sale can be set aside u/s 10(2) of the Act, only when there was fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. In the Instant case none of these Ingredients are present.

The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that the son of the Petitioner participated in the auction on her behalf and according to him it amounts to fraud. There is no law preventing the son to represent his own mother. The mother did not disown the act of her son. In fact, the property has been purchased In the name of the mother. Merely because the son participated in the auction on behalf of his mother does not amount to committing fraud or misrepresentation of facts.

The sale has been held in the year 1964 i.e. more than 16 years prior to setting aside the sale by the Chief Sales Commissioner on 25.11.1980. When a sale which took place in a public auction about 16 years back, strong grounds are required to have the sale set aside. In the case on hand, no grounds much less strong are made out to have the sale set aside. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 25.11.1980 is liable to be set aside.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the Chief Sales Commissioner dated 25.11.1980 is hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs.