Punjab-Haryana High Court
Piara Singh vs The Chief Settlement Commissioner on 17 August, 2001
Author: J.S. Narang
Bench: J.S. Narang
JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J.
1. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner was in possession of evacuee land hearing No. V/94 (house) at Pundori, District Kurukshetra. This property was put to auction on May 29, 1969. The petitioner was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 6,300/-. The bid was accepted by respondent No. 2 and that the petitioner deposited 25% as earnest money amounting to Rs. 1,260/-. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 did not disclose reserved price of the property in question. However, it is subsequent to the acceptance of the bid that the reserved price has been noticed as Rs. 14,193/-.
2. Shri Prabhu Dayal son of Bhana Ram, respondent No. 3 who was residing in the adjacent building, filed an application for transfer of the house to his name which was declined by the Managing Officer. Resultantly, he filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated August 30, 1969. Against the said order, a petition was filed before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana which was dismissed in default vide order dated February 12, 1973.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner sought permission to deposit the balance amount of money which was not accepted. An application was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Settlement Commissioner for permission to deposit balance amount of auction price. The Chief Settlement Commissioner called for the comments of Tehsildar (Sales) and upon report thereof, instead of confirming the same, the auction held was set aside vide order dated January 10, 1975 and it was ordered that the property in question be re-auctioned.
4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was fled before Government of Haryana. the petition was dismissed by Financial Commissioner vide order dated June 23, 1980 by specifically holding that the property in question was put to open auction on May 29, 1969 and the highest bid was given by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 6,300/- and that he had deposited 25% of the bid money. However, it was subsequently noticed by Tehsildar (Sales) that the reserved price of the property was notified as Rs. 9,462/- and, thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs. 14,193/-. It has been specifically observed that any sale of such property which was to be made by way of auction, could not be allowed to fetch less than the reserved price. Reference has been made to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, whereby, it is provided that every sale by way of auction shall be subject to a reserved price fixed in respect of the property. As such, the Financial Commissioner refrained himself from using his redisuary powers contained under Section 33 of the aforesaid Act. As a sequel thereto, petition was dismissed accordingly.
5. The petitioner, being not satisfied, made aforesaid order as subject matter of challenge before this Court. The plea is, that at the time of auction, no one had ever disclosed the reserved price and that the petitioner gave the highest bid in presence of number of other bidders. The bid of the petitioner was duly accepted and that 25% of the amount was accepted by Tehlildar (Sales).
6. The aforesaid rule has also been challenged being violative of the rights enshrined under the Constitution of India. Because the rule deprives the right to acquire property with regard to which appropriate bid has been given and that such sale cannot be subjected to the rule which itself is vague and is not explicit. It is contained in the rule that every auction of the property under the aforesaid Rules shall be subject to reserved price fixed in respect of the property in question but such reserved price may not be disclosed. The reliance placed upon such rule cannot defeat the right of the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, the stand of the Government is, that according to the Property Register/ the reserved price of the property was notified as Rs. 9,462/- but in the year 1969, the said reserved price stood revised to Rs. 14,193/-. Thus, in view of the aforesaid rule, the bid in respect of the property could not have been allowed to commence from Rs. 2000/- as the reserved price was defined as Rs. 14,193/-. However, it is admitted that reserved price was never disclosed at the time of auction which took place on May 29, 1969 and that as per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, it was not necessary to disclose the reserved price.
8. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. I am afraid, I cannot subscribe to the contention of learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. It is the admitted case of the parties that no reserved price was disclosed at the time of auction of the property and that the minimum price was disclosed as Rs. 2000/-by Tehsildar (Sales). The auction commenced accordingly and the highest bid was given by the petitioner as Rs. 6,300/- and in response thereto, 25% of the bid price was also accepted by Tehsildar (Sales). Unfortunately, the sale was not confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner upon some application which was filed by a stranger and that too without giving any reasons. The petitioner was justified in invoking jurisdiction of the State Government by way of filing petition under Section 33 of the aforesaid Act. The Financial Commissioner, in any case, placed reliance upon Sub-rule (5) of Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 and declined to grant indulgence. It is necessary to peruse the aforesaid rule which reads as under:
Rule 90(5) "Every auction of the property under these Rules shall be subject to reserved price fixed in respect of the property but such reserved price may not be disclosed."
9. The rule is self-contradictory. It is not under standable that the property which is to be auctioned has been subjected to the reserved price but reserved price may not be disclosed is funny kind of incorporation in the rule. The right of a citizen cannot be taken away in such a manner, the non-disclosure of reserved price at the time of auction would certainly take away the right of the citizen to acquire property in accordance with iaw.
10. It is the settled law that a rule, the effect of which causes manifest injustice to the society and leaves an escape route for the authority to act arbitrarily, such rule cannot be allowed to exist in the statute. The arbitrary act is writ large. Admittedly, the reserved price contained in the book/register was never ever disclosed to the petitioner and that such act on the part of the authority is protected by the rule in question. Thus, the rule is certainly arbitrary, violative of a right to acquire property in accordance with law and invocation of which causes and has caused manifest injustice to the petitioner. The rule is also violative of principles of natural justice. It is the settled principle that justice not only should be done but should be effectively shown to have been done and if any statute violates a right, such rule does not deserve to remain in the statute book. Therefore, the aforesaid rule is not sustainable and is struck down being violative of the rights of the citizens enshrined under they Constitution leaving escape route for arbitrariness and being violative of principles of natural justice and that also being self contradictory.
11. In view of the rule having been struck down and at the same time, the admitted fact that reserved price was never disclosed to the petitioner and that he was the highest bidder, and that 25% of the bid money was also accepted, I find no reason as to why the sale should not have been confirmed in favour of the petitioner. It is directed that the sale be confirmed by the concerned authority subject to deposit of balance price by the petitipner within one month from the date of receipt of communication from the concerned authorities.
12. The petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
13. The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the concerned quarters within three months from the ate of receipt of certified copy of this is judgment.