JUDGMENT : 1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No........./96 (CC 2567). 2. Special leave granted. 3. Heard counsel for the Panchayat, the State Government as well as the private parties. We find from, the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 28th May, 1993 that from time to time members of the public claiming themselves to be the residents of the village challenged the impugned Resolution dated 11th May, 1992 by which the Gram Panchayat resolved to sell the land in dispute admeasuring 79 bighas out of 400 bighas owned by it by public auction. This Resolution was approved by the concerned authorities as required by the Punjab Village Common Lands Act and rules framed thereunder. The validity of this Resolution was put to test in a series of petitions and ultimately the Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment of 28th May, 1993, pointed out that the series of litigations since 1992 had prevented the Panchayat from implementing the Resolution and auctioning the lands in question. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment it observed as under :- "The observations made above will not debar the petitioners from challenging any other resolution passed in future for the sale of the Gram Panchayat Land. However, we may hasten to add that the residents of the village should not be allowed to challenge the resolution of the Panchayat in their individual capacity but they may do so in their representative capacity in accordance with the procedure laid down by Civil Procedure Code." It would thus appear from the aforesaid observations of the judgment of the High Court that it wanted to put an end to the challenges to the Resolution of 11th May, 1992 so that the Panchayat is able to implement the Resolution. Mr. Raju Raniachandran very fairly stated that in view of the said order the subsequent writ petition which has given rise to these appeals would not be maintainable insofar as that Resolution was concerned, but he submitted that the subsequent auction pursuant to the said Resolution could be put to test. Now it must be remembered that the Resolution was to sell the lands by public auction. The State Government had approved the said Resolution. Now it must be remembered that the Resolution was to sell the lands by public auction. The State Government had approved the said Resolution. An advertisement was issued in the local Hindi Newspapers and in response thereto as many as 50 persons came to bid for the lands in question and the lands were sold for a price which was considered to be adequate. The challenge before the High Court was that the price fetched at the public auction was inadequate and that there were parties which were prepared to make a higher offer. In the writ petition the auction as such was not challenged, but what was challenged was the Resolution of 11th May, 1992. Since it was a public auction, there was nothing hanky-panln about the sale and if certain bidders made offers for the purchase of the lands and they were considered appropriate and accepted, merely because some others come forward after the evert and offered higher price, the same need not casts cloud of doubt in regard to the price fetched. 4. Counsel for the State of Haryana, however, tried to impress upon us that the price fetched was less than the market price and attempted to satish us by drawing our attention to certain sale instances. It is indeed surprising that the State Government which had supported the sale in the High Court has taken a somersault in this Coot and is now trying to question the same. We need say no more and need not try to probe into this change of heart, but all that one can say is that the State Government is shifting its stand. For the above reasons, we think that the High Court was not right in passing the impugned order in total disregard of the earlier order of the Division Bench of the High Court extracted earlier. It must also be remembered that the main purport of the petition before the High Court was to question the Gram Panchayat's decision to sell the land by public auction and the question regarding the adequacy of the price, etc. were side issues. The High Court's objection to the notice in small print can also be brushed aside as not relevant for the reason that the sufficient number of persons had come in response to the notice. were side issues. The High Court's objection to the notice in small print can also be brushed aside as not relevant for the reason that the sufficient number of persons had come in response to the notice. For these reasons, we are inclined to think that the High Court was wrong in passing the impugned order. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. 5. The writ Petition in the High Court must therefore, for the same reasons be dismissed a not maintainable. Thy, is a fit case in which ya must order cost as it is an abuse of the process the Court. We direct the original petitioners, i.c, respondent Nos. 6-12 to pay the cost quantified at Rs. 10,000/- in one set.