IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 2281 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Ravinder Singh ….Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No. 16102 of 2008 filed by respondent No.5 – Jog Raj Singh had been allowed and the order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner had been set aside. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as well as, the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Commissioner and Chief Sales Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evacuee land measuring 2 kanals 1 marla situated in Village Makkowal, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr, was put to auction by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 28.12.1996 under Rule 6 of the LPA No. 2281 of 2011 Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Respondent No.5 – Jog Raj Singh gave the highest bid of Rs.40,200/- which was accepted and accordingly, he deposited Rs.10,000/- as earnest money at the spot with the Tehsildar (Sales). Against the said auction held on 28.12.1996, one Sumitra Devi filed objections under rule 6(a) of the Rules. The said objections had been rejected by the Sales Commissioner. The auction had been held to be conducted in accordance with law. Respondent No.5 had executed a Qubuliyatnama dated 28.12.1996 (Annexure P/1). Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and order 24.03.2005 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, order dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P/9) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, are against the law and evidence on record. We are not in agreement with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The auction was required to be confirmed by the authorities under the Rules since respondent No.5 was the highest bidder. The finding recorded by the Sales Commissioner vide order dated 28.01.1999 (Annexure P/3) is that the auction was an open auction. No advertisement has been given in the newspaper nor any proclamation was got done. Only signatures of Chowkidar are present. There are no signatures of the Lambardar or any respectable person from the area. Therefore, the auction was not confirmed by the Sales Commissioner. Respondent No.5 filed appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner and the Chief Sales Commissioner vide order dated 10.06.1999 (Annexure 2 LPA No. 2281 of 2011 P/4) remanded the case for reconsideration. The Sales Commissioner, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) confirmed the bid in favour of respondent No.5 as objector Sumitra Devi had made a statement that auction should be confirmed in favour of respondent No.5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that before the confirmation of auction in favour of respondent No.5, after remand, the property was allotted to Chanan Singh. Admittedly, objections of Sumitra Devi were rejected and the sale was confirmed. Chanan Singh or Ravinder Singh (appellant) was nowhere in the picture. Chanan Singh has been allotted the land during the pendency of the proceedings regarding confirmation of auction (highest bid) in favour of respondent No.5. Vide order dated 10.06.1999 (Annexure P/4), the Chief Sales Commissioner set aside the order dated 28.01.1999 passed by the Sales Commissioner and remanded the case to the Sales Commissioner. The Sales Commissioner on the basis of the statement of Sumitra Devi, who withdrew her objections, was confirmed the sale in favour of respondent No.5 vide order dated 30.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) as aforementioned Ravinder Singh (appellant) was nowhere in the picture. The appellant was neither a bidder nor in possession of the land in question, filed an appeal before the Chief Sales Commissioner challenging the order of the Sales Commissioner dated 30.09.2003 on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings regarding confirmation of auction dated 28.12.1996, Chanan Singh, father of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, had been allotted land on 19.12.2001 and the appellant is the vendee in pursuance to sale deed dated 26/27.06.2002. On that basis, Chief Sales 3 LPA No. 2281 of 2011 Commissioner set aside order dated 30.09.2003 and accepted the appeal of the appellant by observing that the land had been allotted to Chanan Singh, who further sold the same to the appellant and mutation had been effected. Revision petitions filed by respondent No.5 had been dismissed by the Commissioner, as well as, the Financial Commissioner vide orders dated 29.08.2006 and 08.07.2008 respectively. The learned Single Judge had recorded a categorical finding that the property was auctioned in favour of respondent No.5 which was confirmed vide order dated 30.09.2003. The property stood vested in favour of respondent No.5, auction purchaser, w.e.f. 28.12.1996. The allotment or creation of third party right during the interregnum shall cease to have any effect immediately on the confirmation of auction sale. The orders dated 24.03.2005 (Annexure P/7), dated 29.08.2006 (Annexure P/9) and dated 08.07.2008 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are not sustainable and had rightly been set aside by the learned Single Judge by observing that any allotment or creation of third party interest during the interregnum shall cease to have any effect immediately on the confirmation of auction sale. It is settled principle of law that as per the provisions of Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure, immovable property sold in execution or open auction when such sale become absolute, the property vests from the date of purchase not from the date when the sale becomes absolute or sale is confirmed. Since, the learned Single Judge had recorded a finding that property allotted in favour of Chanan Singh, father of respondent Nos. 6 to 8 on 4 LPA No. 2281 of 2011 19.12.2001 is neither legal nor justified. Auction sale cannot be set aside merely because the property has meanwhile allotted to some other person without canceling the auction sale. In view of the above, we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that property stands vested in Chanan Singh from whom the appellant is a purchaser. Otherwise also, the principle of lis pendens is applicable. Thus, in our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference in the appeal. No merits. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 15, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 5