Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. This order will dispose of C. W. P. Nos. 4681, 4811, 4820, 5063, 5064, 5070, 5210, 5282, 5564, 5608, 5627, 5642, 6045, 6397 and 6913 of 1975 and 629 and 4531 of 1976, in which common question of law is involved. For facility of reference, the facts of C. W. P. No. 5063 of 1975 would be noticed in this judgment.
2. Rakha, respondent No. 3, had purchased the land in dispute in a restricted auction held by the Rehabilitation Department as a Harijan and in the sale certificate there was a clause debarring him from making sale within a period of ten years and in default of the same, the sale certificate in his favour was liable to be cancelled and the auction price to be forfeited. Admittedly, Rakha, respondent effected sale in favour of the petitioner and others within the period of ten years as a result of which the transfer made in favour of Rakha by the Rehabilitation Department became liable to be cancelled.
3. when the sale by Rakha in favour of the petitioner and others came to the notice of the Rehabilitation Department, a reference was made under rule 11 of the Package Deal Roles to the Settlement Commissioner-cum-Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, Punjab, for taking action for cancellation of the transfer made in favour of Rakha respondent. The said officer heard Rakha respondent and vide order dated l9th of May, 1975, copy annexure P-3, cancelled the sale in his favour and forfeited the amount paid by him. Against order annexure P-3, Rakha did not take any action but one of his vendees has come to this Court to challenge the same on various grounds, including the one that the order Annexure P-3 is liable to be struck down as the vendees from Rakha were entitled to be heard before passing the same and since they were not heard, the order was liable to be set aside.
4. All other points, barring the point of hearing the vendees, are covered against the petitioner by our judgment in C. W. P. No. 2861 of 1976--Joga Singh v. Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation, decided on 4th of October, 1979.*
5. As regards the hearing of the vendees from the original transferee, Mr. Sarwan Singh, counsel for the petitioner, has invited our attention to the proviso to Rule 11 of the Package Deal Rules. Rule 11 is as follows:--
'11. Power of revision.
The Settlement Commissioner may call for the record of any case pending before or decided by a subordinate officer and pass such order as may be deemed fit including the resumption of property, provided that the party affected by the proposed order shall be given an opportunity of being heard.'
He urges that the words 'party affected by the proposed order' would include the vendees from the original transferee as after the original transferee has further transferred his rights to the petitioner end others, they step into his shoes to defend the order of cancellation of the original transfer and for ail practical purposes, the cancellation order would affect their rights. He further submits that according to the proviso, the subsequent vendees from the original transferee would stand or fall with the original transferee and as such should have been heard before any adverse order was passed affecting their rights in the property in dispute.
6. On the other side, it is urged that the Rehabilitation Department only recognises the original transferee, and not the subsequent vendees and, therefore, the subsequent vendees are not entitled to be heard.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties. and keeping in view wording of Rule 11 of the Package Rules, we are of the opinion that subsequent vendees are also entitled be heard before any order of resumption is passed. The Department is well aware of the subsequent sale by original transferee as the primary ground for cancellation of the original transfer is the subsequent sale mad, original transferee. Since the subsequent vendees step into the shoes of the original transferee and would swim or with him, therefore, they were also titled to notice under Rule 11 before they were to be dispossessed in pursuance of order Annexure P-3. The order, Annexure P-3, would be binding only against the original transferee namely, Rakha and the same would not bind the subsequent vendees unless they are heard by the Rehabilitation Department
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner and other vendees were not heard by the Rehabilitation Department and, therefore, the order, Annexure P-3, passed against Rakha will not operate against them.
9. For the reasons recorded above, all the writ petitions are allowed only to the limited extent that order, Annexure P-3, shall not operate against the petitioners end other vendees from the original transferees in all the cases till they are heard in accordance with the proviso to Rule 11 of the Package Deal Rules. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Jullundur, on l2th of November, 1979, who shall proceed to hear them and other vendees from the original transferees before taking any action against them in pursuance of the order, Annexure P-3. No order as to costs.
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
10. I agree.
11. Petitions allowed.