Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this court for quashing the order dated February 10, 1984 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, whereby confirmation of the auction of agricultural land held on 9.11.1982 has been refused though he was the highest bidder. 2. A piece of land measuring 32 Kanal 12 Maria comprised in Rect. No. 45, Killa Nos. 18/1, 18/2, 19, 21/1, 21/2. 22/1, 23/1, 23/2 and 23/3 situated in the revenue estate of Village Khera, Tehsil and District Ambala, was put to a restricted auction amongst Harijans (Scheduled Castes) only on February 16, 1982. The petitioner, Lakhmira, (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) who belong to Scheduled Caste category gave the highest bid of Rs. 58,000/-. It appears that the authorities wanted to put the land to an open auction instead of restricting the same to Harijans only/Consequently, the land was put to open auction on November 9, 1982 in which also the petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs. 54,500/- and deposited the requisite earnest money of Rs. 13,625/-. It is not disputed that the land was retrieved from Ram Rakha son of Gobind Ram and Santokh Singh son of Birbal, after cancellation of their allotment. Thus, it appears that there being some dispute in relation to right to hold the land in question, the highest bid was not up to the expectations of the authorities. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was the highest bidder on both the occasions. The highest bid offered by the petitioner in the open auction was also not confirmed by the Prescribed Authority, namely, the Settlement Officer (Sales), who as per the order dated December 20, 1982 (Annexure P-2), declined to confirm the auction for the reason as reproduced below:- "File No. 2983/2 ------ 2888/2Date of auction : 9-11-82/16-7-82 Mauza:- Khera Tehsil and Distt. Ambala Agricultural land measuring 32K - 12M Barani 2 SA. - 9 Units Village Khera Tehsil and District Ambala. Proposal of allotment made in the name of Sewa Ram s/o Daya Singh and Lekh Raj s/o Gopal Dass. Please Reauction. @TAB = Sd/- In English Kartar Singh 20.12.82." 3 Aggrieved at the order Annexure P-2, the petitioner went in appeal before the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, who vide the impugned order dated 10.2.1984 (Annexure P-1) turned down his appeal. 4. Please Reauction. @TAB = Sd/- In English Kartar Singh 20.12.82." 3 Aggrieved at the order Annexure P-2, the petitioner went in appeal before the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, who vide the impugned order dated 10.2.1984 (Annexure P-1) turned down his appeal. 4. It is not disputed that pursuant to the auction afore-mentioned, possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner and at the time when this writ petition came up for preliminary hearing, the Motion Bench vide order dated March 30, 1984 stayed his dispossession. The said ad-interim order was made absolute while admitting the writ petition on May 22, 1984. The petitioner and/or his legal representatives are, thus, in continuing possession of the land in question since the time of its auction held in the year 1982. 5. After notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, While there is no dispute with regard to the factual matrix, briefly stated above, it has been emphasised that the petitioner has no legally vested right to claim title over the land merely on the basis of his being the highest bidder as it was within the competence of the Prescribed Authority to reject his bid and to put the land to re-auction. It has also been averred that the petitioner and his brothers got refund of Rs. 13,625/- through a treasury voucher and the land, thus, having become available, it was allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against their verified claims. 6. Heard Shri C.L. Ghai, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer made in this writ petition. Shri S.K. Vashisht, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana and Shri Rajesh Garg, Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and 4 respectively and perused the record. 7. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it may be mentioned that auction of the surplus land is governed by the "Rules for sale of surplus rural properties" and Rule 5 thereof being relevant is reproduced below:- "Where any property is to be sold by public auction:- (a) The property shall be sold through the officers appointed by the State Government in this behalf. (b) The Settlement Commission or any other officers empowered to sell any such property shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of the principal Civil Court of the Original jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the property is situated. (c) Notice of the intended sale shall be given at least 15 days before the proposed sale and every such notice shall state the date, time and place of the proposed sale, the description of the property to be sold, its location and boundaries where possible, the terms and condition of the sale and any other particular which the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer considers material. One copy of the notice shall be affixed in a conspicuous place in the village(s) where the property is situated e.g. the Panchayat Ghar, Gurudwara, Mandir, School etc. It shall be within the discretion of the Settlement Commissioner or other Officer to advertise the sale in news paper and in such other manner as he may deem fit. (d) No sale shall take place until after the expiry of the period of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice. (e) Every auction of a property shall be subject to a reserve price fixed in respect of the property, but such reserve price shall not be disclosed. (f) The Officer conducting the auction may, in his discretion withhold, sale of any property without assigning any reasons therefor. (g) The Officer conducting the sale may, at his discretion for reasons to be record in writing, adjourn the sale to a specified date and hour and an announcement to that effect shall be made at the time of the adjournment of the sale. Provided that where a sale is adjourned for a period exceeding fifteen days, a fresh notice shall be published, (h) The person declared to be the highest bidder at the public auction shall pay in cash immediately at the fall of hammer the whole amount of the highest bid if it does not exceed Rs. 500/- and if it exceeds this figure, an amount equal to 25% of the highest bid, as earnest money. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was ear-marked for the purpose of restricted auction in favour of Scheduled Castes. 500/- and if it exceeds this figure, an amount equal to 25% of the highest bid, as earnest money. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx" 8. It is not in dispute that the land in question was ear-marked for the purpose of restricted auction in favour of Scheduled Castes. It is also not denied that the petitioner belongs to the said reserved category. It is also admitted by the respondents that in both the auctions, namely, one held on 16.2.1982 and the other on 9.11.1982, the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is true that for justifiable reasons the Prescribed Authority can refuse to confirm an auction. The Authority, however, cannot act on whims and fancies. The only reason for not confirming the auction in favour of the petitioner as discernible from the impugned order dated 10.2.1984 (Annexure P-1) and/or the office note-cum-order dated 20.12.1982 (Annexure P-2) is that the land was decided to be released from the restricted auction to the open auction and that the petitioner and his brothers have sought refund of the earnest money making the land available for allotment and, therefore, it was decided to be allotted to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In my view, both the reasons are only absurd and irrelevant and they have no nexus with the laudable object of social justice for which the land was reserved for the down-trodden of the society and was put to auction to sell to the persons belonging to such class. It is not the case of the authorities that the auction held on 16.2.1982 or 9.11.1982 was not in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, according to which the authorities are required to verify the genuineness of the price offered by the highest bidder, in relation to the value of the land and/or whether the auction has been conducted in proper manner or not. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order that there was an effort to auction the land in question in favour of the petitioner at the back of other competitors and/or there was an offer from any other eligible person higher than the bid given by the petitioner. Thus, no fault can be found with regard to the genuineness of the highest bid offered by the petitioner in the first auction held on 16.2.1982. Thus, no fault can be found with regard to the genuineness of the highest bid offered by the petitioner in the first auction held on 16.2.1982. It may, however, be mentioned here that the auction having been restricted for landless Harijans, the authorities cannot expect the same price as it would have fetched in the open auction. 9. So far as the second reason, namely, the withdrawal of earnest money by the petitioner and/or his brothers is concerned, it was only when the authorities refused to allot the land even for the second time that they requested for the refund of earnest money. It is not disputed that the earnest money was deposited by the petitioner at the time of auction. The authorities themselves took unreasonably long period in deciding to decline the confirmation thereof. A landless poor person cannot be expected to have surplus funds for such like deposits without getting an inch of land in lieu thereof. 10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the request for withdrawal of earnest money per se would not, thus, disentitle the petitioner from getting the auction confirmed in accordance with the Rules. However, the fact, remains that the alleged refund voucher was never got encashed by the petitioner and/or his brothers and the amount remained lying with the respondents only. 11. Coming to the last reason as mentioned in the order Annexure P-2 that the land was free for further allotment or that a decision to allot the same to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had already been taken, suffice it is to say that once the auction in favour of the petitioner is held to be just, fair and valid, there is no question of land being available for its further allotment to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. This plea is also therefore, liable to be turned down. 12. For the reasons afore-mentioned, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 16.2.1982 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. The petitioners who are legal representatives of the deceased petitioner (Lakhmira) shall deposit the balance sale consideration along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum within a period of 3 months from today and on making of such deposit by them, the restricted auction held on 16.2.1982 in favour of their predecessor-in-interest shall stand confirmed. No order as to costs.