CWP No.3152 of 1987 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3152 of 1987 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.11.2011 Punnu Ram son of Wadhawa Ram, resident of village Ghubaya, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. ... Petitioner Versus The Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and another. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate and Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner setting aside the auction, which was held and concluded in favour of the petitioner. The auction was purported to have been held under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and approved by the SDO Civil- cum-Sales Commissioner, Fazilka on 07.02.1983. One Sobha Ram, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent here, had filed an appeal against this decision to the Chief Sales Commissioner contending that he had been actually in possession of 3 kanals 4 marlas of land and no notice had been given to him before the auction. He also contended that the property was more than CWP No.3152 of 1987 (O&M) [2] `50,000/- but it had been sold at a very low price. The Chief Sales Commissioner through his impugned order took a new ground, which was not urged by the parties and held that the sale was to have been through a restricted auction for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes but the petitioner manoeuvred to allow the property to be brought for open auction and with only 4/5 persons participating, he had secured a favourable order of sale. 2. The petitioner challenges the order contending that the property had been advertised for sale in open auction with no reservation for persons belonging only to Scheduled Castes. The reference to a sale certificate issued makes a reference only to open sale. I had requested the counsel for the State to produce the original records, as to how the impugned order makes a reference to the property as a property reserved only for Scheduled Castes. I have found that the ground for setting aside the sale contained no complaint that an open auction ought not to have been held. His contention was that he had not been served with notice when he was in possession 3 kanals 4 marlas of land. On the other hand, the petitioner would contend that there was proper sale proclamation and the 2nd respondent himself had not stated any objection at that time. I find no error in the manner of conduct of sale and the ground for setting aside the sale as found in the impugned order cannot be supported in the light of materials brought before the authority and in the light of the grounds urged by the 2nd respondent for setting aside the sale. 3. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. NOVEMBER 21, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE