Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, by which the sale of land through a restricted auction has been set aside. A few facts may be briefly noticed.
2. There are three pieces of land measuring 31 kanals, 14 kanals 16 marlas and 14 kanals 11 marlas, respectively. These were sold on August 27, 1996 for Rs. 38,000/, Rs. 20,000/, and Rs. 17,000/, respectively. The sales were challenged by respondent No. 2 on twofold basis. Firstly, it was alleged that he had been wrongly excluded from participation. Secondly, he contended that the land was worth much more and that he was willing to pay Rs. 5,000/ in addition to the amount for which each of the three pieces had been sold.
3. On January 13, 1997, the Sales Commissioner accepted the claim of the second respondent and set aside the sales. The petitioners appealed. Vide order dated September 10, 1997, the Deputy CommissionercumChief Sales Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, under Section 10(4) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. Vide order dated April 20, 1999, the Commissioner remitted the matter to the Sales Commissioner to verify the facts. He gave a further direction that in case Lachhman Singh was proved to be a resident of the village, he would be allowed to participate in the auction. This order was challenged by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated April 25, 2000, the Financial Commissioner has held that the auctions had been made in violation of the Government policy and directions. She has held that these were "rightly set aside". Directions for the refund to money to the petitioners have been given. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition.
4. We have heard Mr. M.S. Kang, learned Counsel for the petitioners. He contends that the second respondent was not a resident of the village. He was not entitled to participate in the auction. Thus, he had no locus standi to challenge the auctions. Secondly, it has been contended that the Financial Commissioner has erred in holding that there was a ban on the auctions. In fact, a large number of auctions had taken place and the premises, on which the order has been passed, are nonexistent.
5. It is the admitted position that the total area measuring more than 60 kanals has been sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 75,000/. Irrespective of the fact whether the second respondent was eligible or ineligible to participate in the auction, it appeal that there was no proper auction of the land. The Financial Commissioner has noticed the fact that Lachhman Singh was willing to offer Rs. 5,000/ "more than the auction price in each case." This gives a clear clue regarding the factual position. Even otherwise, in the year 1996 the land was not available at the rate of Rs. 1250/ per kanal (approximately 500 sq. yds. or Rs. 2.50 per sq. yd.) anywhere in the State. In fact, the Financial Commissioner has noticed that the Naib Tehsildar, who had conducted the auctions had not followed by the Government instructions issued by letter dated November 13, 1990, "which lay down the manner in which the reserve price is required to be determined by a Committee constituted by the concerned Deputy Commissioner." She has also noticed the "clandestine manner in which the auction was conducted......." She has recorded that "more than dozen parcels of land in this village were disposed of in this manner and the present auction represents only the tip of the iceberg." As a result, we are not surprised that disciplinary action is contemplated against the Officer, who had conducted the auction. Such being the factual position, we are satisfied that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Kang contends that respondent Lachhman Singh did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility as laid down in the notice, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P2 with the writ petition. He also points out that a certificate, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P6 with the writ petition, shows that the second respondent was not an eligible person to participate in the auction.
7. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we find that the matter had to be considered by the competent authority. Under Article 226 of the Constitution we are not hearing an appeal on facts. We cannot determine the facts for the first time, especially when no error apparent on the record is proved.
8. Mr. Kang has also contended that a number of other sales had taken place. It may be so. The Financial Commissioner has noticed this fact. She has noticed that "the present auction represents only the tip of the iceberg". However, the mere fact that even other auctions have taken place, does not mean that the impugned orders are not justified.
No other point has been raised.
In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned orders. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
