Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1026 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Kundan Lal

2004-09-09

G.S.SINGHVI, VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J. - Whether the Settlement Commissioner/competent authority was legally bound to accept the highest bid of Rs. 6,000/- given by Kundan Lal (respondent No. 1 in L.P.A. No. 320 of 1988 and respondent No. 5 in L.P.A. No. 465 of 1988) in the restricted auction held by Tehsildar (Sales), Ambala (hereinafter described as the Tehsildar) on 23.11.1977 in respect of land measuring 21 kanals 4 marlas comprised in khasra No. 77/15, 16, 17 situated in Village Dera, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala is the main question which arises for determination in these appeals filed against order dated 19.1.1988 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 5013 of 1985. Another question which would need determination by the Court is whether the land in question could have been allotted to Darshan Singh for satisfying his claim under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, the Act). 2. For deciding the above mentioned questions, we have culled out the facts from the pleadings of the parties and additional affidavits dated 6.12.1991 and documents filed by Kundan Lal along with C.M. Nos. 72 and 72 of 1992. 3. In the restricted auction held on 19.1.1966 under the Sale of Surplus Rural Evacuee Properties Rules (for short, the Rules), Kundan Lal purchased 74 kanals 8 marlas of land situated in village Dera, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala for a sum of Rs. 3100/-. The mutation was sanctioned in his favour on 23.3.1977. Immediately, thereafter, he sold that land to third party for a sum of Rs. 46375/-. Kundan Lal also participated in the restricted auction held by the Tehsildar on 5.5.1997 for the land in question and gave the highest bid of Rs. 5,000/-. The competent authority did not approve/confirm his bid and directed that the land be re-auctioned. In the fresh auction held on 23.11.1977, Kundan Lal again gave the highest bid of Rs. 6,000/-. He deposited earnest money on 24.11.1977, but this time also his bid was not approved/confirmed by the competent authority because, in the meanwhile, the State Government had accepted the request made by the Central Ground Water Board (for short, C.G.W.B.) for permission to use the land in question for drilling two experimental bores for carrying out the studies relating to ground water potential and artificial re-charge. The decision of the State Government was communicated to Senior Hydrogeologist, C.G.W.B., UNDP, Ghaggar Basin, Chandigarh by Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department [hereinafter, described as Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation)] vide his letter dated 4.1.1978 (Annexure P1 with C.W.P. No. 5013 of 1985), a copy of which was endorsed to the Tehsildar with the following remarks :- "A copy is forwarded to the Teh. (S), Ambala. The earnest money of Sh. Kundan Lal, the auction purchaser in this case may please by refunded to him. It may please be kept in view that whenever the land is again put to auction after the drilling operations are over, Sh. Kundan Lal should be informed that he can take part in auction. His office file is returned herewith." 4. In compliance of the instructions given by the State Government, the Tehsildar sent letter dated 24.1.1978 (Annexure R5/5 with the written statement filed by appellant-Tejinder Singh) to Kundan Lal informing him that he may apply for refund of the earnest money, but instead of making an application for refund, he, in connivance with the officials of the Rehabilitation Department, unauthorisedly occupied the land in question. 5. After about six and half years of the second auction, Kundan Lal filed a revision petition before Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana [hereinafter described as Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)] for quashing the allotment of the land in question made in favour of Darshan Singh in lieu of his unsatisfied claim as displaced person. He also prayed for issuance of a direction to the Tehsildar to intimate him the amount due in the context of the bid given by him. The revision petition was dismissed by Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) vide his order dated 2.9.1985 (Annexure P2 with the writ petition) by observing that the petitioner did not have any right over the land in question because the bid given by him had not been approved/confirmed by the competent authority. 6. Kundan Lal challenged letter dated 4.1.1978 and order dated 2.9.1985 in C.W.P. No. 5013 of 1985. He pleaded that the highest bid given by him on 23.11.1977 will be deemed to have been approved by the competent authority because no intimation to the contrary was given to him. In support of this plea, he relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 P&H 282. He pleaded that the highest bid given by him on 23.11.1977 will be deemed to have been approved by the competent authority because no intimation to the contrary was given to him. In support of this plea, he relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 P&H 282. He also challenged the allotment made in favour of Darshan Singh by contending that in view of the assurance given by the State Government, the Tehsildar was bound to hold fresh auction for disposal of the land in question and the same could not have been allotted for satisfying the claim of the displaced person, more-so because the property stood transferred to the State Government under the Package Deal. 7. The appellants filed separate written statements to controvert the claim of Kundan Lal. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Haryana and its officers, it was averred that as per condition No. 6 of the memorandum of offer signed by Kundan Lal, the auction was subject to approval by the competent authority which was never granted and possession of the land was never given to him. It was further averred that the reason for non- confirmation of the auction was incorporated in letter dated 4.1.1978 vide which the land was given to the C.G.W.B. for drilling and research purposes. Subsequently, it was disposed of to meet the unsatisfied claim of the displaced person i.e. Darshan Singh. 8. In the written statement filed by Tejinder Singh on behalf of his son- Pardeep Singh, it was averred that the land in question had been allotted to Darshan Singh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder in satisfaction of his claim as a displaced person. The symbolic possession thereof was delivered to Pradeep Singh on 9.2.1985 because, in the meanwhile, Darshan Singh had executed a Will in his favour. It was further averred that the writ petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the land in connivance with the authorities of the Rehabilitation Department. 9. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Rams case (supra) and held as under :- (i) Being the highest bidder, Kundan Lal was entitled to challenge the action of the appropriate authority refusing to approve his bid. 9. The learned Single Judge relied on the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Rams case (supra) and held as under :- (i) Being the highest bidder, Kundan Lal was entitled to challenge the action of the appropriate authority refusing to approve his bid. (ii) Order Annexure P2 is liable to be quashed because no reason was assigned by Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) or the counsel appearing for the State for non-confirmation of the bid given by Kundan Lal and no record was produced to show that the competent authority had refused to approve the sale. (iii) In view of the endorsement contained in letter dated 4.1.1978, the property ought to have been put to fresh auction and an opportunity should have been given to Kundan Lal to participate in the auction. (iv) The land in question could not have been allotted to Darshan Singh for satisfying his claim as displaced person because the same stood transferred to the State Government under the Package Deal. 10. On the basis of the above findings and conclusions, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed order Annexure P2 and directed Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) to decide the matter afresh with regard to the confirmation of the sale and also with regard to the allotment of land in favour of Darshan Singh. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 12. Before dealing with the core issue as to whether the competent authority had declined to approve the highest bid given by Kundan Lal and there were good reasons for doing so, we consider it proper to notice some judicial precedents relating to the status of the right, if any, of the highest bidder at a public auction. In Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 593, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the legality of the action taken by Excise Commissioner to cancel the highest bid given by the appellant in an open auction held for award of liquor contract and the action of Deputy Commissioner to give contract to the private respondent. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that even though, the cancellation of the bid given by the appellant was irregular, the action of the Excise Commissioner did not call for interference because he had done so in the interest of the revenue of the State. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that even though, the cancellation of the bid given by the appellant was irregular, the action of the Excise Commissioner did not call for interference because he had done so in the interest of the revenue of the State. The proposition of law laid down in that case is extracted below :- "The sale was cancelled and a reason was given; and the fact that Government would be able to get an extra Rs. 5,000 a month as revenue is certainly a good reason. The cancellation was, therefore, proper and as the appellant obtained no right to the licence by the mere fact that the contract had been knocked down in his favour (the acceptance being subject to sanction) the appellants first relief asking for a mandamus to confirm his right to the licence for 1953-54 cannot be granted." 13. In Union of India v. M/s. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, (1969)3 SCC 146, the Supreme Court, while approving the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, whereby the respondent was relieved of the obligation to compensate the State for the loss caused due to alleged breach of contract, laid down the following proposition : "There is no concluded contract till the bid at an auction is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to withdraw their bids. By merely giving bids, the bidders do not acquire any vested rights." In State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1975)2 SCC 37, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the right of the State to sell exclusive privilege in relation to liquor, observed as under :- "Once the government declined to accept the highest bid in an auction, the auction becomes useless. Similarly, this effect when the government refuses to accept the highest tender." 14. In Haridwar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui, AIR 1972 SC 1242, the Supreme Court held that till confirmation of the bid is conveyed to the highest bidder, no concluded contract comes into existence. The facts of that case show that at an auction held for settlement of a coup the highest bid of H was accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer subject to confirmation by Government. The D.F.O. reported about the auction sale to the conservator of forests who forwarded the papers to the State Government for confirmation of the acceptance. The facts of that case show that at an auction held for settlement of a coup the highest bid of H was accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer subject to confirmation by Government. The D.F.O. reported about the auction sale to the conservator of forests who forwarded the papers to the State Government for confirmation of the acceptance. During the pendency of the matter before the Government, the highest bidder communicated his willingness to take the settlement at the reserve price which was higher than the bid. Thereafter he applied for the settlement of the coup on the basis of the highest bid. The Government by a telegram to the conservator of forests confirmed the auction sale with H at the reserve price. As no intimation was received by the D.F.O. he did not communicate it to H. Later on the Government cancelled the settlement of the coup with H and settled the same with another person for an amount higher than the reserve price. The appellant challenged the action of the Government not to accept his highest bid and to allot a coup to the private respondent. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal to the extent of his challenge to the allotment of coup to another person but, at the same time, held : "that there was no concluded contract between the Government and the highest bidder H. There was no confirmation of the acceptance of the bid to take the coup in settlement for the highest amount of bid. What the Government did was not to confirm the acceptance made by the Divisional Forest Officer, but to accept the offer made by H in his communication that he would take the coup for the reserve price. What the Government did was not to confirm the acceptance made by the Divisional Forest Officer, but to accept the offer made by H in his communication that he would take the coup for the reserve price. The telegram sent to the conservator of forests could not be considered as a communication of the acceptance of that offer to H. The acceptance of the offer was not even put in the course of transmission to H and so even assuming that an acceptance need not come to the knowledge of the offeror, H could not contend that there was a concluded contract on the basis of his offer contained in his communication to take the settlement at reserve price as the acceptance of that offer was not put in the course of transmission." 15. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, (1982)2 SCC 365, the Supreme Court considered the ambit and scope of the governments power in the matter of acceptance/refusal of highest bid given at the auction held for award of contract to fell trees and exploit forest produce and held as under :- "The power vested in the Government to refuse to accept the highest bid cannot be confined to inadequacy of bid only. There may be variety of other good and sufficient reasons, e.g., the very enormity of a bid may make it suspect. Moreover, the Government is entitled to change its policy from time to time according to the demands of the time and situation and in public interest an such a change, subsequent to the auction but before its confirmation, may be sufficient justification for the refusal to accept the highest bid. In the present case the decision to allot the forest lots to the Forest Corporation was in conformity with the legislative policy and the earlier decisions taken by the Government to implement it. It was no more than a reversion to a policy decision already taken and was a good and sufficient reason for setting aside the auction. In the present case the decision to allot the forest lots to the Forest Corporation was in conformity with the legislative policy and the earlier decisions taken by the Government to implement it. It was no more than a reversion to a policy decision already taken and was a good and sufficient reason for setting aside the auction. The circumstance that the Corporation may not be able to pay the same price as forest contractors, would not make the decision of the Government arbitrary and cannot be a reason for denying the Government the right to give effect to the legislative policy." In Excise Commissioner, U.P. v. Manminder Singh, AIR 1983 SC 1051, the Supreme Court upheld the action of the Excise Commissioner not to confirm the auction held by an authority subordinate to him and observed as under :- "We have considered this submission but we do not think that the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of the Excise Commissioner in the particular circumstance of the case and more particularly as the order of the Excise Commissioner had been made in the interest of securing the best revenue to the State." 16. In Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996)4 SCC 208, the Supreme Court held that the rights of the highest bidder at an auction of land would be governed by the statutory rules, if any, and the conditions of the auction and that the State/public authority is not bound to accept the highest bid or tender. The facts of that case show that the highest bid given by the respondent at an auction held for sale of land was not accepted by Nagpur Improvement Trust. The writ petition filed by the respondent was accepted by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court. After making reference to the conditions of auction and some of the earlier judgments including the judgment in Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa, (1971)3 SCC 153, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "From a bare reference to the aforesaid conditions, it is apparent and explicit that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. This Court has examined the right of the highest bidder at public auctions in the cases of Trilochan Mishra v. State of Orissa, State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram and State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh. It has been repeatedly pointed out that State or the authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is not bound to accept the highest tender or bid. The public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held." 17. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted decisions are : (i) the Government/public authority is under an obligation to hold public auction for allotment of land etc. strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions, if any, and/or the conditions of auction; (ii) the Government/public authority is not bound to accept/confirm/approve the highest bid given at a public auction and the highest bidder cannot claim allotment of land/plot as of right; (iii) the government/public authority can, for reasons having nexus with public interest, refuse to accept the highest bid and/or direct re- auction; and (iv) it is not necessary to communicate the reasons for such decision to the highest bidder. However, if the auction of the government/public authority is challenged by an aggrieved person, then such reasons are required to be disclosed to the Court. In a given case, the reasons can also be gathered from the record maintained by the government/public authority. 18. At this stage, we may also mention that during the pendency of the appeals, the appellants filed C.M. No. 247 of 1994 in L.P.A. No. 565 of 1988 for restraining the official respondents from using the land for operating tubewell. In a given case, the reasons can also be gathered from the record maintained by the government/public authority. 18. At this stage, we may also mention that during the pendency of the appeals, the appellants filed C.M. No. 247 of 1994 in L.P.A. No. 565 of 1988 for restraining the official respondents from using the land for operating tubewell. While issuing notice of that application on 7.3.1994, the Court passed an order of status quo. Thereafter, Gram Panchayat, Dera filed C.M. No. 493 of 1994 under Order 1, Rule 8-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its impleadment as party and for directing the appellants not to interfere with the running of the government tubewell installed by the Central Government in 1978 which was, later on, taken over by the Public Health Department of the Government of Haryana. On 12.8.1994, the Court directed Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantt. to go to the spot and submit a report whether the tubewell was in operation or not. Accordingly, the concerned Railway Magistrate visited the spot and submitted report dated 15.6.1994 that the tubewell was in operation on 7.3.1994. Thereafter, by an order dated 2.9.1994, this Court disposed of C.M. Nos. 247 and 493 of 1994 and vacated the order of status quo with a direction that the tubewell will continue to operate for the benefit of the residents of the villages. The relevant extract of that order is reproduced below :- "After hearing counsel for the parties and having perused the record including the objections filed by the applicant in civil miscellaneous 247 of 1994 and the report of the Railway Magistrate, we are satisfied that a tubewell exists on the land in dispute and the same was in operation on March 7, 1994 when the order of status quo was passed. It is clear from the averments made in civil miscellaneous 493 of 1994 which are duly supported by an affidavit that the tubewell is supplying drinking water to a number of villages in the area. We are further of the opinion that the applicant in civil miscellaneous 247 of 1994 under the garb of the order of status quo has not permitted the authorities to operate the tubewell from the day when that order was passed. We are further of the opinion that the applicant in civil miscellaneous 247 of 1994 under the garb of the order of status quo has not permitted the authorities to operate the tubewell from the day when that order was passed. In the circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to accede to the request of the applicant in civil miscellaneous 247 of 1994 to cross-examine the Railway Magistrate who has reported to this Court that the tubewell was in operation. Resultantly, we vacate the order of status quo and direct that the tubewell will continue to operate for the benefit of the residents of the village. Respondent 5-Shri Kundan Lal in the main appeal will, however, remain restrained from raising any further construction on the land in dispute during the pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal." 19. We shall now consider whether the competent authority had taken a decision not to approve/confirm the bid given by Kundan Lal. A perusal of letter dated 4.1.1978 shows that the State Government had accepted the request made by the authorities of the C.G.W.B. for utilisation of the land in question for drilling two experimental bores for carrying out studies on ground water potential and artificial re-charge. The governments decision was conveyed to Senior Hydrogeologist, C.G.W.B. by Deputy Secretary (Rehabilitation) and a copy thereof was endorsed to the Tehsildar with the direction to refund the earnest money deposited by Kundan Lal. Soon thereafter, the Tehsildar sent letter dated 24.1.1978 to Kundan Lal and asked him to apply for refund of the earnest money. It is, thus, clear that the competent authority did not approve/confirm the bid given by Kundan Lal in the backdrop of the decision taken by the government to permit use of the land for running experimental bores by C.G.W.B. and he did not acquire any right in relation to the land in question because by virtue of condition No. 6 embodied in the Memo of Offer signed by him, the auction was subject to the approval of the competent authority. 20. The fact that the decision of the State Government was in public interest is evinced from the handing over the tubewells bored by C.G.W.B. to Public Health Department of the Government of Haryana for supply of drinking water. 20. The fact that the decision of the State Government was in public interest is evinced from the handing over the tubewells bored by C.G.W.B. to Public Health Department of the Government of Haryana for supply of drinking water. Report dated 15.6.1994 submitted by Railway Magistrate, Ambala shows that the drinking water is being supplied from the tubewell to a number of villages in the area. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge completely overlooked the import of communications dated 4.1.1978 and 24.1.1978 and committed a serious error by observing that there did not exist any reason for non-confirmation of the bid given by Kundan Lal and the decision in this regard was not communicated to him. 21. The next issue which requires consideration is whether the decision of the competent authority was conveyed to Kundan Lal or he had otherwise come to know about the same. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, Kundan Lal had made the following averments : "That the petitioner was under the impression that the auction in favour of the petitioner held on 23.11.77 was intact as the petitioner received no intimation whatsoever from the Department. Moreover, no notice was received by the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner visited the office of the Tehsildar Sales, Ambala during this time to ascertain the position as to whether the sale in his favour has been confirmed or not but every time the authorities informed that he will be intimated as and when the same is done." In the corresponding paragraph of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 (appellants herein), the following averments were made : "In reply to para No. 5 of the petition, it is submitted that since the auction was not confirmed, the question of asking him to deposit the balance price of the land did not arise. Besides, he was also asked vide letter No. 177/TSA dated 24.1.78 to apply for refund of the earnest money. In view of this, rest of the averments made by him are quite baseless. Hence denied." In our opinion, the assertion made by Kundan Lal lacks credibility and should have been ignored by the learned Single Judge. Besides, he was also asked vide letter No. 177/TSA dated 24.1.78 to apply for refund of the earnest money. In view of this, rest of the averments made by him are quite baseless. Hence denied." In our opinion, the assertion made by Kundan Lal lacks credibility and should have been ignored by the learned Single Judge. He had neither controverted the averment contained in paragraph 5 of the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Haryana and its officers that vide letter dated 24.1.1978 (Annexure R5/5), the Tehsildar had asked Kundan Lal to apply for refund of the earnest money nor denied the receipt of Annexures P1 and R5/5. It is, thus, clear that as early as in January, 1978, Kundan Lal had come to know about the decision of the competent authority not to approve his bid. 22. We are further of the view that the averments contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Haryana and its officers and Tejinder Singh which have not been controverted by Kundan Lal by filing replication and documents Annexures P1 and R5/5 are sufficient to prove that the competent authority had taken a decision not to approve the bid given by Kundan Lal on 23.11.1977 and the same was conveyed to him. This conclusion is fortified by the fact that till the filing of the revision petition before Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation), Kundan Lal had neither deposited the balance price of the land nor made any enquiry from the concerned authority regarding the status of his bid. He asked for the details of the amount payable by him only in the revision petition filed in 1985. Total silence on Kundan Lals part for a period of more than seven years militates against his assertion that he did not know about the non-approval of his bid by the competent authority. 23. We may now advert to the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Rams case (supra). The facts of that case were that evacuee property measuring 50 kanals 1 marla situated in village Kamalpur Gadrian, Tehsil and District Karnal was put to auction several times, but the bids were not confirmed by the competent authority. In the last auction held on 24.11.1978, the petitioner and his brother gave the highest bid of Rs. 20,400/-. They deposited Rs. 2550/- as earnest money. In the last auction held on 24.11.1978, the petitioner and his brother gave the highest bid of Rs. 20,400/-. They deposited Rs. 2550/- as earnest money. However, their bid was not confirmed because in the meanwhile a writ petition was filed in the High Court questioning the auction. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed. Notwithstanding this, the Settlement Commissioner (Sales), without issuing notice to the petitioner and affording an opportunity of hearing to him, set aside the auction on the ground that the land was shamlat deh. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Government. He then filed C.W.P. No. 2114 of 1983. The same was contested by the respondents. They questioned the locus standi of the petitioner on the ground that the decision not to confirm the auction did not result in violation of his legal or fundamental rights. The Division Bench which heard the writ petition, after noticing the decision of another Bench in State of Haryana v. Asha Ram, AIR 1983 P&H 57, referred the matter to a larger Bench. After analysing the provisions of the Rules, the Full Bench held as under :- "The aggrieved person whose right to the property as a result of non- acceptance of the highest bid, is being taken away, can certainly challenge the action on the ground that the order of the appropriate authority is arbitrary or has come in existence as a result of extraneous considerations and in case it is so proved, then the order of non-acceptance would certainly be liable to be quashed. The State Government or the appropriate authority can defend its action by disclosing reasons given for non-acceptance of the bid and if the same are found relevant, relief would straightway be declined. The State Government or the appropriate authority can defend its action by disclosing reasons given for non-acceptance of the bid and if the same are found relevant, relief would straightway be declined. But there is no warrant for this proposition that even if the order of the authority in not accepting the bid is arbitrary and does not disclose any reasons, then also the legality of the same cannot be challenged in a Court of law." P.C. Jain, Acting Chief Justice, who spoke for the Bench, recorded his conclusion in the following words :- "Thus, as a result of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer under sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of the Rules is bound to record reasons which are relevant for refusing to accept the highest bid or other bids, that such reasons have not to be disclosed to the highest bidder, that in case an action refusing to accept the highest bid is challenged in a Court of law, then the reasons given for refusing to accept the bid have to be made available so as to enable the Court to find out if the same are relevant and germane to the non-acceptance of the bid and that the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer cannot arbitrarily, whimsically and without assigning any reasons refuse to accept the highest bid or other bids." In our opinion, the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench in Surja Rams case (supra) does not, in any manner, support the cause of Kundan Lal. Rather, it supports the case set up by the appellants because, as mentioned above, the reasons for non-acceptance of the bid given by Kundan Lal are clearly discernible from the averments contained in the written statements filed to the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith, which show that the State Government had, keeping in view the larger public interest, accepted the request made by the authorities of C.G.W.B. to permit the use of the land in question for digging experimental bores for ground water potential and artificial re-charge studies. 24. The question which remains to be considered relates to the legality of the allotment of the land in question to Darshan Singh. 24. The question which remains to be considered relates to the legality of the allotment of the land in question to Darshan Singh. Shri Dinesh Ghai argued that even though there existed cogent reason for not accepting the highest bid given by his client, the land in question should have been put to re-auction in terms of the assurance given by the State Government and the same could not have allotted to Darshan Singh. In our opinion, the direction given by the State Government to the Tehsildar to enable Kundan Lal to participate in the auction was contingent on the holding of fresh auction and the assurance, if any, given to him proved abortive because the land was never put to auction. In any case, the endorsement contained in letter dated 4.1.1978 cannot be construed as an embargo against the allotment of land to Shri Darshan Singh for satisfying his claim as a displaced person. In this context, it is also appropriate to observe that even though, he had questioned the legality of order dated 2.9.1985 passed by Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation), Kundan Lal did not place on the record any material in support of that challenge. The order/letter vide which the land was allotted to Darshan Singh was not placed on record. Therefore, the learned Single Judge did not have the occasion to examine the legality thereof. In this view of the matter, it must be held that Kundan Lals challenge to the allotment made in favour of Darshan Singh is liable to be rejected. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge committed a serious error by directing re-consideration of the case of Kundan Lal for approval/non-approval of his bid and allotment of the land to Darshan Singh. 25. Before concluding, we may mention that in the course of hearing, Shri Dinesh Ghai made strenuous efforts to persuade us to direct the official respondents to regularise the possession of Kundan Lal in accordance with the policy framed by the State Government, but we have not felt persuaded to agree with him. Kundan Lal has not controverted the assertion contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the State and its officers that the possession of the land in question was never delivered to him. Kundan Lal has not controverted the assertion contained in the written statement filed on behalf of the State and its officers that the possession of the land in question was never delivered to him. This necessarily means that he had unauthorisedly occupied the public land and retained possession thereof in the garb of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. A direction by the Court for regularisation of his possession would amount to legitimisation of the land grabbing by Kundan Lal and we do not see any justification, legal or otherwise, to do so ignoring the fact that a part of land has already been utilised for tubewell through which water is being supplied to the population of nearby villages. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by Kundan Lal is dismissed. Appeals allowed.