Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Surja Ram vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 13 February, 1984
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.
Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996
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.
Ekta Shakti Foundation vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 17 July, 2006
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:-
Anil Kumar Khurana vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 9 February, 1996
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:-
1