JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners Jagtar Singh and Richhpal Singh have challenged the order dated 28.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide which the transfer of the land in question to the petitioners vide order dated 30.9.1991 was set aside, and the revision preferred against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 11.3.2003.
2. In this case 42 kanals of land situated in village Booh, Distt. Kapurthala was sold in restricted auction to Puran Singh (respondent 4 herein), who is a Scheduled Caste, on 21.1.76. The said sale was confirmed by the Sales Commissioner vide his order dated 2.5.77. The auction purchaser Puran Singh was delivered physical possession of the land vide order dated 11.10.77. It also appears from the record that Puran Singh did not pay some of the installments in respect of the sale consideration.
3. In the year 1991 Tehsildar, Sales vide order dated 30.9.1991 transferred the aforesaid 42 kanals of land to the petitioners in two equal shares on the ground that they were unauthorized occupants of the land from Kharif 1984, the said transfer was confirmed by the Sales Commissioner on 28.7.1991 and consequently the conveyance deed was also issued.
4. Subsequently, Puran Singh filed a revision under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 against the aforesaid sale before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Kapurthala alleging that the land was transferred in their favour long back, therefore, it could not have been sold to the petitioners. The said petition was dismissed by the Chief Sales Commissioner vide order dated 24.5.2000. Against the said order, Puran Singh filed a Revision before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was allowed vide order dated 28.11.2001. It was held that the land in question was auctioned in favour of Puran Singh in restricted auction in the year 1976 being member of a Scheduled Caste. The said sale was confirmed by authorities and the possession was delivered. The said auction sale was neither cancelled by any authority nor it could have been cancelled because of non-payment of installment. At the most the installment due could have been recovered as a land revenue as per Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was also held that the allotment of land to the petitioners on the ground of unauthorized and illegal possession was not justified because the petitioners were not in cultivating possession of the land in question since kharif 1984 in the revenue record i.e. jamabandies for the years 1982-1983 and 1987-88, the land in dispute was shown in possession of Puran Singh as Gair Marusi Awal and the petitioners were shown in possession of Gair Marusi Doim. It was held that entries in the revenue record reveal that he petitioners have been shown in cultivating possession of the land under Puran Singh.
5. The above said order of the Commissioner was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner when the revisions filed by the petitioners against the said order were dismissed, while observing as under-
“9. I have considered the arguments propounded by Ld. Counsel and have gone through the relevant record. I conclude that the order of ld. Commissioner dated 28.11.2001 is very well reasoned and elaborate. The facts of this case are not disputed and the restricted auction held on 21.6.76 was neither cancelled nor could it be cancelled for failure to deposit the installments which were liable to recovered as arrears of land revenue under Rule 6(6)(xiii) of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules, 1976 and under Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (C&R) Act, 1954. I rely on rulings 1994(1) R.L.R. 326 and 1973 R.L.R. 580 of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court according to which a sale cannot be cancelled on the ground of non-payment of outstanding dues when there is statutory provision for the recovery of such price.
10. In the Jamabandi for the years 1982-83 and 1987-88 the possession has been shown to be that of “Puran Singh Gair Marusee Abal. Richhpal Singh Jagtar Singh Gair Marusee-Doim”. This means that the petitioners were in cultivating possession is not proved since Kharif 1984, the Commissioner has rightly concluded that the land in dispute was not available for the transfer to the petitioners on 30.9.91. The petitioner applied for the transfer of said land by concealing the fact that this land was sold in restricted auction earlier. Under these circumstances the sale in favour of the petitioner is dubious and the order dated 30.9.91 of the Tehsildar and order dated 28.7.1982 of the Sales Commissioner were correctly set aside.
11. So far as the plea that the Commissioner has committed an illegality in treating the case under Punjab Package Deals Properties Act, 1976 when this restricted auction was held on 21.1.76 under the Displaced Persons (C&R) Rules, 1955 is concerned. I am inclined to agree with the State Counsel that no new ground is maintainable at the stage of revision before this Court as this plea was not taken by the petitioners before the lower Courts earlier.”
6. Against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed review applications, which were also dismissed, vide orders dated 1.12.2004, Annexure P-13 and P-14 respectively.
7. We have heard the counsel for ‘the petitioners and perused the various orders annexed with this petition.
8. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the revenue record the petitioners were in possession of the land in question from Kharif 1984 and on the basis of their possession, the land in question was transferred to them by the Tehsildar, sales vide order dated 30.9.91 and the said transfer was confirmed by the Commissioner. After depositing the entire amount, the conveyance deed was also issued in their favour. He submitted that since the land in question was legally transferred to them, therefore, the Commissioner should not have set aside their transfer. He further submitted that since the respondent Puran Singh in this case did not pay the installment, therefore, he has lost his right in the land in question and the Commissioner has wrongly relied upon Rule 6(6) of the Rules, which came into operation w.e.f. 30.4.1976 whereas the restricted auction was held on 21.1.1976. He further contends that since the petitioners were bona fide purchasers, therefore, even if the respondent-Puran Singh was held to be entitled for some land then some alternative land should be allotted to him and the sale made in favour of the petitioners should not have been set aside.
9. We do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Undisputedly in the year 1976 the land in question was sold in restricted auction to respondent-Puran Singh being a Scheduled Caste. He participated in the auction and he was declared a successful bidder. He deposited the initial amount, thereafter, auction sale was confirmed and physical possession was delivered to him. His possession is reflected in the revenue record. It is not the case of the petitioners nor there is any material on the record that the auction sale in favour of Puran Singh was ever cancelled by the authorities on the ground of non-payment of some installments. Neither at any point of time he was dispossessed. Actually the petitioners have been recorded in cultivating possession of the land under respondent-Puran Singh. Once the land was allotted by public auction and the said transfer was confirmed, then it cannot be re-transferred in favour of other person without first canceling the earlier transfer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner rightly came to the conclusion that transfer of the land in question second time in favour of the petitioners was not justified and legal. The respondent-Puran Singh was member of the Scheduled Caste community and the land was allotted to him by way of restricted auction. If there was non-payment of any installments then as per Rule 6(6) of the Rules, such installments could have been recovered from the allottee by way of land revenue. Undisputedly, the property in dispute is a Package Deal Property, which was purchased by the State from the Custodian in 1961 and the Rules framed by the State for disposal of such property were applicable to the land in question. Once the land in question was sold second time in favour of the petitioners. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.