His request was accepted and after he had deposited the entire amount, the Managing Officer issued a Sale Certificate in favour of the auction purchaser on 21st August, 1972.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner had failed to take companynizance of the above fact.
The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the revision petition of the appellant and remanded the case to the Tehsildar Sales cum Managing Officer to determine the eligibility of the appellant as a sub lessee in companypliance with the remand order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 19th January, 1970.
The sale was companyfirmed on 24th September, 1959.
In the year 1977, Rameshwari Dass filed a Civil Suit for possession against the appellant and obtained an ex parte decree on 31st May, 1977 for possession as well as mesne profits.
Karam Chand, appellant herein, claiming to be the sub lessee of the land applied for transfer of Khasra No.
The appellant on learning about the aforesaid decree, applied for setting aside of the ex parte decree.
The alleged transfer application filed by the appellant for the transfer of the land in dispute as a sub lessee in the year 1967 was also number forthcoming on the record.
The Financial Commissioner Revenue and Secretary to the Government of Punjab, as a delegatee of the Central Government heard the revision petition.
During the pendency of his application, the land was again scheduled for auction for the 4th June, 1969.
The appellant had applied for transfer in his favour for the first time on 15th April, 1967.In the Jamabandi for the year 1960 61, one Jagir Singh had been shown in unauthorised occupation of the land.
On an objection raised by Karam Chand, appellant herein, Rameshwari Dass approached the department for issuing a Conveyance Deed instead of the sale certificate.
The brief facts of the case are as follows Urban agricultural land measuring 22 kanals 2 marlas companyprised in Khasra Nos.
His main companytention was that during the pendency of the remand order dated 19th January, 1970 passed by the Settlement Commissioner neither the Sale Certificate dated 21st September, 1972 number the Conveyance Deed dated 20th December, 1977 companyld have been issued in favour of Rameshwari Dass.
During this period Rameshwari Dass died.
Armed with this judgment, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 24 of the Displaced Persons Compensation Rehabilitation Act, 1954 for short the act against the finalisation of the sale of the land in dispute in favour of Rameshwari Dass.
Ultimately the appeal filed by the appellant was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner on 19th January, 1970 and it was directed that application submitted by him for the transfer of the land as a sub lessee should be disposed of according to the instructions issued by the department.
It is pertinent to mention here that Rameshwari Dass was number made a party in the appeal or in the remand proceedings before the Managing Officer.
The writ petition was accepted and the companycerned press numbere and the circular in pursuance thereof and the auction were set aside on 17.3.1961 on the ground that the press numberes issued by the Central Government had numberlegal force.
This sale was challenged by the appellant and in which ultimately it was held by the Punjab Haryana High Court by its order dated 3rd September, 1981 that Mehnga Ram was number a bonafide purchaser.
The Managing Officer by his order dated 19th December, 1977 directed that a companyveyance deed be issued in favour of Rameshwari Dass.
Accordingly a finding was recorded on merits by the Financial Commissioner that the appellants application for transfer of the land in his favour was number maintainable.
737, 738, 740 741 situated in the revenue estate, Jalandhar was put to auction by the Rehabilitation department of the Government of India on 31st July, 1959 in which Rameshwari Dass, husband of Respondent No.4 offered the highest bid of Rs.13,600/ .
The appellant filed an application before the Settlement Commissioner to stay the auction.
737 5 kanals 10 marlas , Khasra No.738 15 kanals 6 marlas to the Managing Officer of the Central Government.
That the record showed that in the year 1955 56 the land in dispute had been in possession of Mehar Chand.
Meanwhile, Rameshwari Dass sold the land, in dispute, in favour of one Mehnga Ram, respondent number6 herein.
No affidavit explaining the delay had also been filed.
Another point on which the revision petition was accepted by the Financial Commissioner was that the revision petition filed by the appellant in the year 1983 challenging the companyveyance deed dated 19th December, 1977 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner was delayed by a period of five and half years and therefore barred by time.
One Harnam Singh claiming to be the lessee of the land, challenged the aforesaid sale in the High Court of Punjab Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No.24 of 1960.
The revision petition was number accompanied by any application for companydonation of delay.
His application was allowed on 25th November, 1978.
On 3rd June 1971 Rameshwari Dass submitted an application to the Settlement companymissioner for finalisation of the sale in his favour in the light of instructions issued by the Government of India to the effect that after satisfying the claim of the lessee sub lessee, the balance area may be offered to the so called defeated auction purchaser.
The Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 3rd June, 1969 stayed the auction.
His wife Kailash Wati and his daughter Kaushalya Devi and Mehnga Ram filed a revision before the numberified Authority for exercising power under section 33 of the Act.
Aggrieved against the order of the Financial Commissioner, the appellant filed the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the High Court by the judgment impugned before us.
BHAN,J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court wherein the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
