Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daljit Singh And Another vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 1 March, 2013
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rekha Mittal
Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHNDIGARH.
Letters Patent Appeal No.95 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 1.3.2013
Daljit Singh and another ..Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present: Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. D.Khanna, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate,
for respondent no.4.
RAJIVE BHALLA,J. (ORAL)
The appellants pray that order dated 7.11.2011 allowing the writ petition filed by Sher Singh, respondent no.4, thereby setting aside order dated 18.4.1988 passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, may be set aside.
The petitioner purchased plot no.S.1, measuring 260 sq.yards, situated in village Boh, Tehsil and District Ambala, in an open auction, conducted by the Tehsildar (Sales), Ambala, on 30.7.1987 for Rs.5,600/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.1400/-, i.e., 25% of the amount of his bid, on fall of the hammer. The highest bid offered by the petitioner was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala. The petitioner was asked to deposit the remaining amount, which he duly deposited. A sale deed was registered on 25.9.1987, with the office of Sub Registrar, Ambala. Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 2 The appellants filed a revision under Rule 11 of the Disposal of Surplus Rural Evacuee Agricultural Land Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "1962 Rules") by alleging that the auction was conducted secretly without any publication. The Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 18.4.1981 accepted the revision and set aside the auction by holding as follows:
" I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and have gone through the record, I have perused proclamation papers and the auction proceedings. On form No.S.XII there are cutting in the dates. On form No.S.XX the area of the plots its location/boundaries etc. have not been indicated. In the absence of these particulars the public at large could not know as to which particular property was to be auctioned. Such particular property was to be auctioned. Such particular have also not been mentioned over in the printed Ishtihar Nilam. The action also seems collusive because only those persons have offered the bid who had signed the proclamation papers (Form No.S.XII). Although offering a higher price is no ground in itself for setting aside the sale but there was difference between the bid fetched, i.e., Rs.5600/- and the offer of Rs.14000/- by the petitioner should that the auction has been conducted without proper proclamation and wide publicity and the genuine perspective bidders has been deprived of Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 3 their right to participate in the auction resulting in substantial injury to the State. In view of these facts I set aside the auction dated 30.7.1987 and its confirmation order dated 14.9.87 and also cancel the sale certificate issued in favour of the respondent. The plot in question be requisitioned after wide publicity and due notices to the parties. Initial bid in reauction should start from Rs.14000/- being that of the petitioner and Inder Singh."
A perusal of the order reveals that auction was set aside as cuttings were found in the dates in Form S.XII, whereas Form S.XX did not mention the location/boundaries of the plot and the auction appeared to be collusive.
The writ petition, filed by respondent No.4, has been allowed by holding that as the proclamation was duly effected, description of the property, as plot no. S.1 is recorded in Form S.XX, cuttings are irrelevant and mere absence of khasra numbers, particularly when the property is duly identified as plot no.S.1, does not indicate such an error as empowered the Settlement Commissioner to set aside the auction, while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the writ petition has been allowed by reversing findings of fact recorded by the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, without summoning and perusing the original record. The finding with respect to cuttings in Form S.XII, the lack of description of the property, in dispute, in Form S.XX and the findings of the Collector Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 4 have been reversed without assigning clear and cogent reason.
Counsel for respondent no.4 has argued that the order passed by the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, has been rightly set aside. The findings relating to cuttings, lack of description of the property and collusion are factually incorrect.
After considering the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the following order was passed on 11.2.2013 " The dispute in the present case, is whether the property, in dispute, was auctioned in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules for the sale of Surplus Rural Evacuee Property which provides that notice of intended sale shall contain, apart from other particulars, the description of the property along with its location and boundaries, where possible.
A perusal of the finding recorded by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation, reveals that Forms XII and XX contain cuttings and the area of the plots, its location and its boundaries are not indicated. A perusal of the paper book reveals that these forms are not available on record.
Counsel for State of Haryana is directed to produce the relevant record, particularly with regard to the afore- mentioned forms.
Adjourned to 26.02.2013."
The relevant record was produced by counsel for the State of Haryana and perused by us as well as by counsel for the Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 5 parties.
A perusal of Forms S.XII and S.XX, reveal that there are no material cuttings in Form S.XII and the property is described as plot no. S.1 in Form S.XX. Counsel for the appellants fairly concedes that there are no material cuttings in form S.XII and the plot is described as S.1 in Form S.XX.
The learned Single Judge has, while dealing with the findings recorded by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum- Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, held as follows:-
"4. This case has been dealt with by the Settlement Officer in exercise of his power of revision. This order gives out amongst the other reasons that the date of publication had been corrected. The correct is not such a correction, which enlarges the period necessary from the date when the publication must be effected to the date when the auction was actually held. The correction is said to be in respect of the date of auction viz from 01.07.1987. It is not seen from the impugned order whether the Settlement Officer had elicited any information from his subordinates about how the correction had come about. Similarly, the observation made by the Settlement Officer that there had been no proper description of property as per the relevant rules, must be seen in the context of the particular property, which had been set out through the proclamation. The nature in description has been given as agricultural land plot No.S/1 and the area of the plot has Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 6 been given as 260 sq. yds. The proclamation refers to the details of five persons as having participated in the auction and the number of persons present at the auction was reported to be 20. When the petitioner challenges the order and says that there was no ground as detailed in the impugned order, one would expect that the State would support its own order with reference to the files, I cannot assume what the order finds as defects in auction as really available, when a challenge is made in the writ petition. I have not benefit of knowing how this correction could have been made or when it could have been made when the order itself does not elicit such an information. Same way, it is not possible for me to take merely an objection that the property was not properly described when I find that the extent has been mentioned and the field number is also given. The absence of reference to khasra numbers, I would not think to be serious, unless there was a definite material to show that there was any misleading information which prevented any member of the public from participating........"
The findings recorded, while allowing the writ petition, do not call for interference as the errors pointed out by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, have been suitably dealt with and explained. It would be necessary to point out that, in their revision, the appellants did not raise a grievance that they were misled by failure to refer to khasra numbers Letters Patent Appeal No. 95 of 2012 (O&M) 7 or by the absence of a detailed description of the property and, therefore, could not bid for the plot, in dispute.
In view of what has been stated herein above, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs.
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( REKHA MITTAL ) 1.3.2013 JUDGE VK