The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Financial Commissioner's order upholding the sale of disputed property. The Court held that the delay in filing the petition and the justification of hearing bona fide purchasers precluded any interference at this late stage.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16998 OF 2007 :{ 1 }:
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 26, 2009
Gurnam Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Swaran Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. P. C. Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. G. S. Bal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 6.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Aggrieved against the order passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dated 2.4.2002, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
The case relates to sale of a property under Punjab Package Deal properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 . 74 Kanals 6 Marlas Land in Village Nurpur Mand, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, was
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16998 OF 2007 :{ 2 }:
sold to Surta Singh for consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 7.12.1976. The sale was confirmed by the Sale Commissioner on 16.3.1978 and the objection filed by Pritam Singh were rejected. However, this sale was cancelled on 26.6.1978 by Chief Sales Commissioner, which order was confirmed by Commissioner on 17.7.1984.
One Gian Kaur Purchased land measuring 49 Kanals 13 marlas on 25.2.1987 and 9.12.1988 from Surta Singh and her rights as bonafide purchasers were upheld by the Civil Court vide a decree dated 25.5.1991. One Sucha Singh also purchased land measuring 24 Kanals 15 marlas and mutation to this effect was duly sanctioned. On a revision petition filed by the said persons, before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, the case was remanded to the Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, on 30.6.1995. It was pleaded before the Chief Sales Commissioner that Surta Singh had sold the land after 10 years to the vendees who belong to the Scheduled Caste. However, it was pointed out that Surta Singh was not residing in the village and was, thus, not entitled to take part in the auction. Finding this to be correct the Chief Sales Commissioner set aside the auction on 20.5.1997. This order was taken in revision petition before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, who accepted the same on 1.11.2001 and set-aside the order of Chief Sales Commissioner on the ground that the Civil Court decree proved that Smt.Gian Kaur was the owner in possession of the suit land, being a bonafide purchaser and could not have been condemned unheard. This order was impugned before the Financial Commissioner, who found that Chief Sales Commissioner failed to respect the remand order passed by the Commissioner on
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16998 OF 2007 :{ 3 }:
30.1.1995. The Chief Sales Commissioner in fact had adopted a procedure by sending Sales Commissioner to visit Nurpur Mand and made enquiry whether Surta Singh ever resided in the village and after relying upon this report, he had come to the conclusion that he was not eligible to take part in the auction. Finding that Surta Singh, after sanction of mutation and upon payment, become owner in possession of the land in dispute and that the right of Smt.Gian Kaur had been upheld by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Garshankar, against which the appeal was filed but was dismissed, the Financial Commissioner declined to interfere in the order passed by the Commissioner. This order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 2.4.2002 is made subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, which is filed on 16.10.2007.
Thus, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 2.4.2002 is impugned after more than 5 years by filing present writ petition on 16.10.2007. Except for saying that the petitioners, after collecting the documents, have filed the writ petition, no explanation is forthcoming in regard to this inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Even otherwise the view taken by the Financial Commissioner and that by the Commissioner that on the basis of the Civil Court decree, the persons were required to be heard , appears justified. The bonafide purchaser of land have rightly been held entitled to be heard. The sale earlier had been confirmed in favour of Surta Singh after rejecting the objections filed by Pritam Singh. In view of this, no case for interference, at this belated stage, is made out.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16998 OF 2007 :{ 4 }:
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
February 26, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Financial Commissioner's order declining to set aside the sale of disputed land.
Whether the inordinate delay of more than five years in filing the writ petition bars the grant of relief.
Gurnam Singh and another
State of Punjab and others
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
