CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2009 Salwant Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarhand others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. B.S. Guliani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is auction purchaser of a land but is yet to get possession thereof and has spent all these years in one Court or the other. This should not be a plight of person who happens to participate in an auction organised by the State. The State and its functionaries have also not considered the facts in the correct perspective to arrive at proper decision to end the agony of the petitioner-auction purchaser. The trouble for the petitioner started when he purchased the land in question in an open auction held by the Department on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 2 }: 22.12.1976. The land purchased measure 12 acres 10 units. The sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 12.9.1978. This fact emerges from the proceedings. The possession of the property, however, was not delivered to the petitioner and for same, the petitioner has to move from one Court to another and has now landed in this Court. This 12 standard acres-10 ¾ units of land, which was purchased by the petitioner in auction was in fact allotted to Dharmsala Jaurian-wali in village Ransike, Tehsil Batala through Mahant Sahib Singh chela Mahant Kirpa Singh on 4.1.1957. This property was subsequently sold by chela of the Mahant to one Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh in the year 1958. The allotment made to Dharamsala got into rough weather when the Department made inquiries after carrying out the spot inspection to find that there was no Dharamsala ever established in the village and further that before any Dharamsala could be established the entire land was sold by Mahant to Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh. Questioning the locus and right of the Mahant to alienate this land, decision was taken to cancel the allotment. It was viewed that the Mahant in any event, had not followed the terms of the allotment and had misconducted himself by carrying out the sale of this property though he was only a Manager or Mohatmim. The allotment in the name of the Dharmsala was, thus, cancelled on 22.3.1967. Then followed the process of appeal and revision which invited various inquiries by the Managing Officer. Most of the time it led to directions being issued to see if Dharamsala existed or not. Managing Officer visited the spot on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 3 }: 16.4.1976 and gave a firm and categoric finding that there was no Dharamsala ever existed on the land. Despite this finding, another attempt was made to reopen the case by urging that Dharamsala infact had been established at Amritsar. This invited another inquiry but it was found that the institution which existed at Amritsar had nothing to do with the Dharamsala for which this land was allotted. In the year 1981, yet another attempt was made to make out an absolutely a new case. It was urged that proprietary rights of 5-7 standard acres were confirmed in the name of Dharamsala whereas rest of the area i.e. 4-11 standard acres was in fact on the individual name of the Mahant Sahib Singh. It was accordingly pleaded that the proprietary rights of allotment qua only 4-11 standard acres be maintained and remaining land should be cancelled. This move also failed and allotment was cancelled. Having cancelled the allotment, the Department decided to put the land to auction. That is when the petitioner came into picture, being the highest bidder in the auction, held in the year 1976. The petitioner paid the entire consideration and the property stood allotted on his name free from all encumbrances. The Department itself had conducted this auction. The writ petition thereafter is blissfully silent as to what further proceeding had taken place. Thereafter, abruptly a mention is made to an order dated 2.9.1986 whereby Managing Officer was directed to examine the entire record in the minutest details. In reply to query, Mr. Guliani points out while confirming the sale in favour of petitioner on 12.9.1978 due notice has been served on Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh. They, however, intentionally absented CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 4 }: and the sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed. The counsel has made reference to these facts from a photocopy of the order passed by the Chief Sale Commissioner, Jalandhar on 14.12.1978, which is in his possession. This is kept on record as Mark 'A'. Perusal of Mark 'A' would show that the objections filed by Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh against the confirmation of sale in favour of the petitioner were dismissed in default on 26.5.1978. Subsequent thereto the sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed on 12.9.1978. Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh appears to have filed a revision against order dated 26.5.1978, objecting to auction in favour of the petitioner on number of grounds including that their purchase application was pending with the Tehsildar, when he had decided to hold auction of the land. They had also raised an objection in regard to the rights of the petitioner to purchase this land being not resident of the same village. The Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed this application holding that eligibility of the auction purchaser was required to be examined according to rules. Chief Settlement Commissioner remanded the case to Sales Commissioner, Batala for fresh decision on merit after hearing both the parties. They were directed to appear before him on 21.12.1978. As can be made out from Annexure P-1, Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh even thereafter did not appear before the Sale Commissioner but instead moved another application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who vide his order dated 13.2.1979 remanded the case before the Managing Officer to re-examine the entire issue. Accordingly Superintendent-cum-MOD recommended Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel the proprietary rights CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 5 }: conferred in favour of Sahib Singh chela Kirpa Singh through Amar Singh, finding that no proprietary rights were ever obtained by Dharamsala, Jaurianwali. It is also observed that proprietary rights were obtained by Sahib Singh Chela Kirpa Singh through Amar Singh. Such rights could not have been conferred upon Chela of the Mahant. They will have right to manage the property but have no right to alienate the same. Accordingly, the Chief Settlement Commissioner was requested that the proprietary rights conferred on Sahib Singh Chela Kirpa Singh through Amar Singh on 4.1.1957 be cancelled so that further proceedings may be taken up in the matter. The parties were directed to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 22.11.1979. A perusal of Annexure P-2 reveals that the case was again dealt with by the Managing Officer and he vide his order dated 12.3.1981 restored 4 standard acres-11 units area in the name of Sahib Singh Chela Kirpa Ram and cancelled the rest of the allotment. It is further seen that the case was taken up in appeal and had gone upto the level of Financial Commissioner, Revenue. He appears to have directed investigation to find out whether Dharamsala actually came into existence as had been directed earlier in the order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who had cancelled the proprietary rights from the name of Dharamsala to the extent of 7 acres 15-3/4 standard acres of unit. On 13.2.1984, the Managing Officer had ordered that the entire area be allotted to Dharamsala and the case of Salwant Singh (petitioner) was dismissed in default. Salwant Singh then filed an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, who vide his order dated 7.10.1985 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 6 }: remanded the case and that is how it came up for hearing before the Managing Officer. Vide his order dated 2.9.1986, the Managing Officer found that 4 standard acres and 11 units of area had been received in favour of Amar Singh Chela Sahib, Dharamsala, which had been sold out to the vendees. This allotment was kept intact and for the remaining land, Mangal Singh (father of the petitioner), was directed to deposit the rest of the auction money, it having been sold in auction to him. Tehsildar, Batala, was directed to proceed further in the matter to do the needful. Both the parties thereafter filed appeal against this order before the Settlement Commissioner. The appeal was allowed and the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance sale price on 28.8.1987, for whole of the land, which he had bought in an auction. Strangely, however, now one Surinder Singh claiming to be Chela of Amar Singh, filed a revision against this order before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Without looking into the locus on the part of said Surinder Singh to file this petition, the Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition and set-aside the order dated 20.4.1987 passed by the Settlement Commissioner and order dated 2.9.1986 passed by Tehsildar-cum-Managing Officer. He further remanded the case back to Tehsildar (Headquarters), Chandigarh, with a direction to re-examine the factum of religious institution having been re-established in India in the light of the instructions on the subject and the directions of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and to satisfy himself about the fulfillment of other pre-requisite concerning the allotment of land to the religious institutions. He was also directed to pass a fresh speaking CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 7 }: order after hearing the concerned parties. The petitioner thereafter filed revision against this order and vide his order dated 17.5.1990, the Financial Commissioner up-held the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner and, thus, directed that the case should be re- examined and decided within a period of four months. These are the orders, which the petitioner has challenged before this Court through the present writ petition. As already noticed, the petitioner had purchased this land in an auction held by the Rehabilitation Department. No fault has been found in the auction, which was held on 22.12.1976. This auction was confirmed and despite having paid the full amount as far as back in 1976, the petitioner has been forced to face various litigations. He has been kept out of possession ever since he had purchased this land in an auction. No officer has so far cared for the plight of the petitioner. It may also need a notice that the right of the religious institution for allotment of this land has never been fully recognised by any of the authorities. Still, one Officer after another has chosen to remand the case to ascertain whether Dharamsala was in existence or not. The petitioner is justified in submitting that even if it be assumed that some land was received in the name of Mahant, still the proprietary rights for the land would belong to the Institution and not Mahant, who could never own any land in his personal capacity. The succession of the land which is allotted to the religious institution would go from Guru to Chela and it would never be open to be inherited in personal capacity. It is in this background that the Managing Officer in his order dated 2.9.1986 had found that Sahib Singh was entitled to 4 acres 11 units as per the record CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 8 }: received from Pakistan and the remaining area was wrongly allotted in the name of Dharamsala. This had been accordingly cancelled. Dharamsala was also not found to be in existence after the death of Mahant Sahib Singh. Amar Singh is Chela, who had sold out the entire area, although he was not competent to do so. Still, some persons like Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh, who were not party before the Court, were allowed to contest the appeal. Even Dharamsala had also not appeared before the authorities to contest the petition filed by the petitioner. Considering this background and the fact that the case has unnecessarily been remanded by one authority or the other without much justification, the same need to be finally brought to finality. From the facts as narrated above, it is seen that the petitioner has not been fairly treated. He has unnecessarily been made to go from one Court to another. Sometime, he is held entitled to entire land bought by the petitioner for which he had deposited the amount and sometime he is held entitled to the part of the land. The authorities should have realised that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, who had participated in the auction and had purchased the land. Despite having deposited the amount, the petitioner has not been able to enjoy the fruit of the property. Somehow or the other, the case has been remanded on more than one occasion to find out the same very things, which were earlier gone into and determined. The Financial Commissioner had decided to remand this matter by raising some questions in the impugned order. As per the Financial Commissioner, it is required to be ascertained whether such an institution has been set up in India or not. If the Institution CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 9 }: exists, then whether Sahib Singh was competent to sell the allotted land. In case, he was not competent, then the sale is invalid and consequently, the cancellation of allotment of land on this account needs to be re-considered. He has also directed that proprietary rights were cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 14.7.1981 whereas auction in favour of father of the petitioner took place on 22.12.1976. He further held that the allotment of land in dispute was cancelled without getting the proprietary rights cancelled and, thus, it would be void. These questions would not require to be examined. The short and crisp question that would arise for consideration is whether the petitioner had purchased this land in an auction and whether he has deposited this amount or not. The allotment of this land to an institution would not be a concern of the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner has suffered enough and has been able to establish his right throughout. The questions requiring examination as directed by Financial Commissioner, vide his order dated 17.5.1990, are already noticed above. All these issues have been determined more than once as the facts noticed herein before would reveal. The allotment in the name of Dharamshala was cancelled on 22.3.1967 on finding that Mahant had misconducted himself by carrying out the sale of the property. Subsequently, directions were issued to see if Dharamshala existed or not. Managing Officer visited the spot on 16.4.1976 and came to a firm conclusion that there was no Dharamshala ever existed on the land. An attempt made to show that Dharamshala had been established at Amritsar also failed when on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 10 }: enquiry made, it was found that the institution, which existed at Amritsar, had nothing to do with the Dharamshala in question for which the land was allotted. Another move made on the ground that proprietary rights of 5-7 standard acres were confirmed in the name of Dharamshala, whereas rest of the area 4-11 standard acres was in fact in the name of Mahant Sahib Singh. This also failed and the allotment of entire land in favour of the Dharamshala was cancelled. It was then that the land was put to auction where the petitioner bought the same being the highest bidder. The sale in favour of the petitioner was confirmed on 12.9.1978 after due notice to Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh, who had purchased the land from Mohatmim etc. The objections filed by Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh against the confirmation of sale were dismissed on 26.5.1978 and then sale was confirmed on 12.9.1978. Though the case was remanded to the Sales Commissioner for fresh decision when this order was challenged by Bawa Singh and Kartar Singh, but they did not appear before the Sales Commissioner and instead moved another application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, who remanded the case to Managing Officer on 13.2.1979 to re-examine the entire issue. It is then that proprietary rights conferred in favour of Sahib Singh Chela Kirpa Singh were recommended to be cancelled and the parties were directed to appear before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 22.11.1979. Subsequently, again Financial Commissioner had directed investigation to find out whether Dharamshala came into existence as had been directed earlier in the order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Ultimately, on 2.9.1986 Managing Officer found that 4 standard acres and 11 units of area CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 11 }: had been received in favour of Amar Singh Chela Sahib, which had been sold to the vendees. This allotment was kept intact and the remaining land sold to father of the petitioner was held valid and he was directed to deposit the rest of the auction money. The petitioner as well as respondent filed an appeal against this order and the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and he was directed to deposit the balance sale prices on 28.8.1987 for whole of the land. Matter was thereafter re-opened at the instance of one Surinder Singh, who came into the picture for the first time. Strangely, the matter was again remanded to re-examine the factum of religious institution having been established in India. Against this, the petitioner filed a revision, when it is directed that the case be re- examined, which is under challenge through the writ petition. Thus, the issue of religious institution having been re- established in India or not has been gone into on more than one occasion and the firm finding in this regard is that this institution was never established in India. There is, thus, no further requirement or need to have further enquiry on this issue. It is the high time that this finding returned more than once, as already noticed, is respected and brought to finality. The question whether Sahib Singh was competent to sell the allotted land was needed to be gone into only if it was to be found that the institution existed. Since the finding is that no institution existed or was established, the question of competency of Sahib Singh to sell the allotted land would not require determination. Even otherwise, this aspect has been gone into and a finding returned is that Mohatmim has no right to sell the land allotted in favour of religious institution. Once it is found that Sahib Singh was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12975 OF 1990 :{ 12 }: not competent to sell the land and it is to be held invalid, the cancellation of allotment on this ground would not require to be re- examined as directed by the Financial Commissioner in the impugned order. Even the aspect of cancellation of proprietary rights need not be gone into as these have, in fact, been cancelled and should not at this stage be allowed to affect the right of the petitioner to purchase this land in question. It would be none of the concerns of the petitioner to show the validity of allotment or cancellation thereof. The petitioner is the auction purchaser and has deposited the entire amount. He is yet to enjoy the fruits of the property. For all these years, he has been made to fight one litigation after another. The same issues are being racked up again and again by the authorities without taking into consideration the validity of the earlier order or the requirement in this regard. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner can not be sustained and is set-aside. The rights of the petitioner pursuant to the auction in his favour are held valid. The impugned orders passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 17.5.1990 (Annexure P-5) and that of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 30.5.1988 (Annexure P-4) and order dated 2.9.1986 (Annexure P-2) are set-aside. The land, which has been bought by the petitioner in auction, thus, be finalised and Settlement Commissioner and Tehsildar, Batala are directed to proceed further in the matter and do the needful. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. May 25, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts/khurmi JUDGE