CWP No. 105 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 105 of 1986 Date of decision October 13, 2011 Gurdev Singh ....... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. C. Setia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. C. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None for respondent No.6. **** 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. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in purported exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), 1976. The writ petition is brought at the instance of the petitioner who was a purchaser at an auction under the Act. Originally the auction which was held on 26.4.1983 and confirmed in favour of the petitioner on 28.6.1983 for the purchase consideration of 57,100/- was challenged at the instance of one Balwant pointing out certain CWP No. 105 of 1986 2 alleged irregularities in the conduct of auction. The order was passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner setting aside the auction and accepting the plea of Balwant Singh under Section 10(1) (2) of the Act of 1976. The petitioner as an aggrieved person filed a revision to the Commissioner under Section 10(4) which set aside the order and held through the order dated 1.1.1985 that the auction was properly held and in view of the instructions of the government there was no reason to hold that the share of evacuee for Shamlat Patti land could not have been auctioned. The Financial Commissioner passed an order observing that if the department was of the view that the land could not be auctioned, it could take action for cancellation by making reference to competent authority. This order was again sought to be challenged by a further revision under Section 15 by Balwant Singh. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order passed on 1.1.1985 and it is this order passed on 15.10.1985 which is in challenge through this writ petition. 2. Before opening the case on merits I had directed the parties to argue on how the further revision became possible under Section 15 against the order that was disposed of in revision by the Commissioner exercising powers under Section 10(4) of the Act. While the petitioner's counsel would argue that such power did not exist, the counsel for the State would only take me to how the order passed by the Financial Commissioner could still be justified on merits. 3. Section 15 grants a power to call for records to the State Government under clause (1) while the Commissioner would have a power of revision subject to power of the State Government under Section 15(1), Section 15(3) sets out the procedure that such an order cannot be passed without giving the affected person an opportunity of being heard. Section 15(1) and (2) contemplates revisional jurisdiction that would be exercised suo motu while Section 10(4) contemplates the exercise of CWP No. 105 of 1986 3 jurisdiction by the Commissioner in revision by a party aggrieved. An order which the Commissioner could revise under Section 15(2) shall be an order passed by any Officer and which in his opinion finds is inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Act. I cannot find this provision as empowering a third party to seek for a further revision as sought to be done in this case. I would rest the case to obtain a finality by the order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 10(4) with the limitation that the order itself contains. The order dated 1.1.1985 specifically reserves the authority to cancel the auction if ever the department took the view that the land could not be auctioned. The same right will be reserved but the order of the Financial Commissioner will have to go for, it would amount to an exercise of power that did not vest in the Financial Commissioner. It is brought at the instance of mere participant who claimed that there had been some defects in the auction. 4. It is an admitted case that the department had the benefit of revenue through the auction money paid by the petitioner and possession had also been handed over to him soon after the confirmation on 28.6.1983. The impugned order dated 10.12.1985 is set aside and the order of the Commissioner passed on 1.1.1985 stands restored. 5. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 13, 2011 archana