Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zile Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 20 April, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.721 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 20.04.2011
Zile Singh
.....Appellant
versus
The State of Haryana and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 10.1.2011, dismissing CWP No.1355 of 1987 filed by the appellant-petitioner.
In the writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to a notice dated 13.2.1987 (P3), ordering re-auction of the land, which he has purchased in an auction on 20.3.1984. Further challenge has been made to an order dated 9.3.1987, dismissing revision petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 11 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules 1976, in which, he claimed that he being the highest bidder, the sale of the land be confirmed in his favour.
LPA No.721 of 2011 2
It is apparent from the record and not disputed before us that five acres of land was purchased by the appellant for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The appellant deposited an amount of Rs.2250/- towards the earnest money with the Tehsildar (Sales) on the date of auction i.e. 20.3.1984. Rest of the amount was to be deposited on confirmation of the sale, as per terms and conditions of the auction. The sale was subject to an approval by the competent authority. Admittedly, the land was sold less than the reserved price. It was so noted by the Tehsildar Sales in his note dated 1.1.1987, which reads thus:-
"This file is received from the Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Rehabilitation-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner office on 27.1.1986. Highest bid is much below reserve price. Resale may be allowed.
Sd/-
Tehsildar (Sales) Rohtak 1.1.87"
The said noting was approved by the competent authority on 5.1.1987, ordering re-auction of the land in dispute. The appellant failed before the competent authority and then filed a writ petition before this Court.
Before the learned Single Judge, it was grievance of the appellant that when auctioning the land, in dispute, reserved price was not indicated. Had it been so, he would have offered higher amount than the reserve price. Prayer was made that he be allowed to deposit an amount equal to the reserve price and sale be confirmed in his favour. To support said contention, reliance was placed upon Full Bench Judgments of this Court in Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana and another, 1984 PLR 584 and Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 2007 (4)PLR, 247. LPA No.721 of 2011 3
At the time of arguments, counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that when auction in favour of the appellant was rejected, no reason whatsoever was given. In the face of the order passed by the Tehsildar on 1.1.1987, which was approved by the competent authority on 5.1.1987, we feel that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. To reject the highest bid, it was stated that at the time of auction, the amount fetched was less than the reserve price. We feel that it was a valid reason not to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant.
Further contention of counsel for the appellant is that on payment of amount equal to the reserved price, sale be confirmed in his favour. The learned Single Judge has noticed a contention of counsel for the appellant that the reserved price needs to be indicated at the time of auction, however, the relief was not granted to the appellant by observing as under:-
"Now the question which arises is, whether non- disclosure of the reserve price in the auction notice will confer right on the petitioner to seek confirmation of the sale or the property should be permitted to be re-auctioned by complying with the rules, i.e. to disclose the reserve price. As per the petitioner, he has deposited Rs.2250/- and has entered into the possession of the property. By paying meager amount of Rs.2250/-, the petitioner cannot derive any right to enjoy possession of the land measuring 40 Kanals. No vested right accrued to the petitioner merely for the reason that he has emerged as a highest bidder. Being a highest bidder, he has right for consideration of confirmation of sale, but he could not have presumed that the same will be confirmed in LPA No.721 of 2011 4 his favour and he can enter into possession of the property. From the averments made in the written statement, the possession of the petitioner is said to be unauthorized and that of a trespasser. The petitioner has not produced any communication that he was authorized to enter into possession of the property put to auction. Therefore, an unauthorized occupant cannot be permitted to seek confirmation of sale only for the reason that he has emerged as a highest bidder way back in the year 1984. Public interest would demand that the property is put to sale by disclosing the reserve price, so that all eligible persons can compete for the auction and the maximum price is secured by the sale of the evacuee property. The judgments in Surja Ram's and Subhash Chand's cases are not helpful to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been held in Surja Ram's case that the authority is bound to record reasons for refusing to accept the highest bid or other bids. To the same effect is the Full Bench judgment in Subhash Chand's case. In the present case the Tehsildar (Sales) has recorded a note on 01.01.1987 that the highest bid is much below the reserved price. It is the said note which was approved by the Additional Settlement Officer on 05.01.1987. Therefore, the confirmation of sale is declined for the reason that highest bid is much below than the reserved price. Therefore, the ratio in aforementioned cases is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the reasons for non confirmation are available on the record.LPA No.721 of 2011 5
Though in the written statement, the date of auction in favour of Laxmi Chand is given as 07.11.1986, but obviously that date is incorrect as the property was put to auction on 20.03.1984, in which the petitioner was the highest bidder. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, auction in favour of Laxmi Chand was approximately 18 months before the date of auction in favour of the petitioner, but after the circular was issued in 1981. The act of confirmation of sale in favour of Laxmi Chand cannot create any right in favour of the petitioner. Even if the sale was confirmed in favour of Laxmi Chand, but such act of confirmation of sale is against the circular Annexure R-3. An illegality committed in the case of Laxmi Chand will not entitle the petitioner to the same illegality in his favour. Reference may be made of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain and others, 1997 (1) Supreme Court Cases 35, Gursharan Singh and others etc. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1175 and Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2609. It has been held in such judgment to the following effect:-
"16. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order could not be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality to cause another unwarranted LPA No.721 of 2011 6 order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be exercised for such a purpose."
Therefore, even if sale in favour of Laxmi Chand was confirmed, the same does not confer any enforceable right in favour of the petitioner.
Petition dismissed."
We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Even before us not a slightest evidence has been shown to negative the finding given by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had forcibly occupied five acres of land. The sale was subject to a confirmation. The appellant had deposited only Rs.2250/-, rest of the amount was yet to be paid. Without waiting for the confirmation, he entered in possession of the land and is enjoying the same for the last more than 25 years. Such a person who is a law breaker is not entitled to get any relief from the Court when exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Our view is supported by ratio of the Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in Anil Kumar Khurana v. M.C.D., 1996 (36) DRJ(DB)558, in which it was observed as under:-
"19. In an equitable jurisdiction it is the duty of the court to preserve the public good. The writ court cannot protect the wrong. A person who seeks equity must do equity. No one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. A person who has committed a wrong may not be heard by a writ court in support of the plea that the authority which is taking action against him has no power or jurisdiction and such power vests in another statutory authority. The law breakers can be LPA No.721 of 2011 7 refused equitable relief assuming they may have some case on merits. The writ court can deny hearing to such law breakers."
Dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
20.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
gk Judge