Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gambhir Singh And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 March, 2009
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 30, 2009
Gambhir Singh and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
Mr. P. S. Sikand, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.6613 of 2008 (Gambhir Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 8180 of 2008 (Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.6613 of 2008.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition to challenge the order whereby auction of land was held in favour of respondent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 2 }:
No.6, though the same was cancelled but allowed in an appeal. The revision was also dismissed against this order.
The facts, in brief, are that the land though shown in the ownership of the State is stated to be in actual physical and cultivating possession of the petitioners and their fore-fathers. The petitioners had made reference to Khasra Girdawaries, showing their actual cultivating possession as on 31.12.1987. This land was auctioned in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.6, namely, Bhulla in restricted auction. The petitioners claim that this auction was totally defective and was sham transaction. It is further pleaded that the auction purchaser did not deposit the balance auction amount for 20 years after depositing 1/8th of the same. Grievance is made that still auction conducted in the year 1987 has been confirmed in favour of respondent No.6 in the year 2006. By relying on the Government instructions providing that the persons who are in continuous occupation of such evacuee properties would be entitled and eligible to purchase the same, the petitioners claim a preferential right to buy this land in terms of these Government instructions.
The petitioners had also moved an application for purchase of this land on the basis of these Government instructions dated 28.1.2002. Tehsildar (Sales) by keeping in view the hike in the market value of the land recommended that the auction in favour of respondent No.6, which was held on 31.12.1987, be cancelled. On the basis of recommendation of Tehsildar (Sales), the auction held in favour of respondent No.6 in the year 1987 was cancelled on 18.10.2004 by the Settlement Officer. Respondent No.6 filed an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 3 }:
appeal against the said order, which was allowed on 14.12.2006. The petitioners filed a revision against this order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 16.1.2008. That is how the petitioners have impugned this order through the present writ petition.
Notice of motion in this case was issued. Reply is filed. In the reply, it is pointed out that the petitioners have intentionally mis-stated the facts. It is further pointed out that father of petitioner No.1, Sohan Lal, had filed a civil suit No.22 of 1988 in Civil Court at Ambala, seeking injunction against State of Haryana and for consequential relief for transferring this land in his possession. The said suit was dismissed in default on 26.3.1991. The submission is that the petitioners would now be estopped from seeking the same relief after a gap of 15 years. Grievance further is that the petitioners have filed this writ petition without disclosing that they had filed a civil suit, which was dismissed but was not pursued thereafter.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners primarily contends that this auction was conducted in favour of respondent No.6 on 31.12.1987. After depositing 1/8th of the amount, respondent No.6 did not take any action to deposit the balance sale amount for almost 20 years. He accordingly submits that Settlement Commissioner was not justified in confirming this auction and giving chance to respondent No.6 to deposit the remaining instalments. On the other hand, he pleads that the petitioners are having better claim to buy this land in view of the Government instructions issued on the subject as he is in possession of this land. In addition, counsel for the petitioners also says that the petitioners are prepared to pay the present market CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
value of the property.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.6 says that he could not deposit the remaining amount of the auction money in view of the stay obtained by the petitioners. It is otherwise conceded that this stay was vacated in the year 1991, when the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed in default. Still, respondent No.6 did not take any action to deposit this amount nearly for a period of 15 years. Learned counsel for respondent No.6, however, will explain this delay by saying that on number of occasions he had gone to deposit this amount but he was told that the stay was still operating. In this regard, he refers to the order of Commissioner to point out that different dates have been mentioned when the suit filed by the petitioners was statedly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, would say that this is only a typographical mistake and actually the suit was dismissed in the year 1991, which fact has also been mentioned by counsel for respondent No.6 in his reply as well.
Be that as it may, it is a fact that respondent No.6 did not take an appropriate action to deposit the remaining amount, though the suit was dismissed on 26.3.1991. Similarly, the petitioners can also not absolve himself of fault in this regard. After dismissal of the suit in the year 1991, the petitioners did not take any action to further challenge the order either by filing an appeal or seeking restoration of the suit till the time they filed the present writ petition before this Court on 21.4.2008. He can not plead ignorance on his part about the state of affairs. Since the auction in favour of respondent No.6 was held in the year 1987, which has now been confirmed and he CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 5 }:
has already deposited the requisite amount, it will not be fair to upset the arrangement only on the ground that there is delay in depositing the amount. This delay is because of stay though respondent No.6 could be expected to be vigilant to watch the suit and take action. The petitioners had also not taken a timely action to plead equity in their favour. On the other hand, respondent No.6 can also not be excused of his conduct in sitting quiet for a period of almost 15 years and now seek the concession on the ground of equity that auction is in his favour. Equities are, thus, required to be balanced. Counsel for respondent No.6 is, thus, asked to have instructions if he would be prepared to be put to some reasonable terms. Respondent No.6 is present in Court. On instructions, counsel says that respondent No.6 is now prepared to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs per acre for land, which is about 9 acres. The counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners are prepared to pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs per acre.
This is not an auction being conducted. Respondent No.6 has an order in his favour. He has deposited the entire amount. Because of delay on his part, he is being asked to pay an additional amount which is substantial. He could have got this land just for Rs.fifty thousands approximately. He is suffering because of stay obtained by the petitioners and for not being vigilant to protect his rights and interest. It would not be fair to put him to more stringent terms. It appears that the petitioners are now raising bid to upset the auction. Accordingly, the stand of respondent No.6 is considered just and reasonable. In case, respondent No.6 deposits the amount as agreed before this Court within a period of two months from today, the sale in his favour shall stand confirmed and the present writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6613 OF 2008 :{ 6 }:
petition shall stand dismissed. In case, respondent No.6 fails to deposit this amount within the stipulated time and the time is not extended, the authorities will be entitled to cancel the auction, which is standing in favour of respondent No.6. The petitioners would then be entitled to seek allotment of this land in terms of rule position, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law but not at rate lesser than the offer before the Court.
Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
March 30,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE