JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant Jagannath Prasad filed a suit for specific performance on 24.10.1969 in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur against Defendant-Respondent No. 1 State of Rajasthan in respect of disputed Nazul Shop No. 124 situated in Chaubhuja Bazar, Bharatpur. It was pleaded in the suit that the said shop was in tenancy of plaintiff @ Rs. 12.50 paise per month. The State Government framed rules for auction of Nazul properties in the year 1967. A Disposal Committee was constituted under the said rules. The disputed shop was put to auction under the said rules on 13.01.1968. Plaintiff was highest bidder for Rs. 2,600/-. His bid was accepted and he deposited 1/10th amount i.e. Rs. 2,60/-. The Disposal Committee vide letter/order dated 24.05.1968(Exhibit-2) accepted the bid of the plaintiff under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Nazul Building(Disposal By Public Auction) Rules, 1967(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1967') and informed the plaintiff to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 2,340/- within a period of 15 days. The plaintiff deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 2,340/- under Rule 12(1) of the Rules of 1967 vide Challan No. 71 dated 06.06.1968 and submitted a copy of the challan in the Office of Chairman of the Disposal Committee. It was also pleaded that after deposit of full amount, the Disposal Committee confirmed the sale in favour of the plaintiff under Rule 15(1) of the Rules of 1967 and informed the plaintiff to submit non-judicial stamps of Rs. 102/-, which was submitted before Disposal Committee. The plaintiff put his signature on 07.06.1968 alongwith signatures of the witnesses. However, the Chairman of Disposal Committee did not execute the Sale Certificate. The plaintiff served a notice on the defendant to execute the Sale Certificate, but the same was not executed and a threatening was given to the plaintiff on 24.07.1968 about re-auction of the disputed shop. In these circumstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to file a suit in the trial court. 3. Defendant filed their written statement wherein it was admitted that it is correct that disputed shop bearing Nazul No. 124 is in tenancy of the plaintiff since 16.09.1957. In these circumstances, it became necessary for the plaintiff to file a suit in the trial court. 3. Defendant filed their written statement wherein it was admitted that it is correct that disputed shop bearing Nazul No. 124 is in tenancy of the plaintiff since 16.09.1957. Since the plaintiff was not using the said shop, therefore, it was sub-let to Omprakash and Bhagwan Das sons of Leelaram, therefore, the plaintiff was not in possession of the said shop on the date of auction i.e. 13.01.1968. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff's bid was for Rs. 2,500/-, but Omprakash gave an offer for Rs. 2,600/- and since Omprakash was in possession of the disputed shop and his offer was highest, therefore, it was reported that 1/10th amount of the sale price has been deposited by Omprakash. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application in writing that he is ready to purchase the shop for Rs. 2,600/-. It was further stated that the plaintiff was wrongly informed about acceptance of his bid. Other facts and pleas were also mentioned by the defendant in written statement and it was prayed that suit filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed eight issues. During pendency of the suit, Omprakash, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. in trial court for impleading him as party in the suit and his application was allowed and he was impleaded as Defendant No. 2 in the suit. Since he was impleaded as Defendant No. 2, therefore, Issue No. 7, "Whether Omprakash is necessary party?" was deleted. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective submissions. 5. Learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.04.1976 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed Defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed in respect of disputed Nazul Shop No. 124 in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Being aggrieved with the same, Defendant No. 1, State of Rajasthan and Defendant No. 2 Omprakash both preferred two separate appeals. Learned first appellate court vide its judgment dated 09.08.1979 dismissed the appeal of Omprakash being not maintainable, as no decree was passed by the trial court against him. 6. Being aggrieved with the same, Defendant No. 1, State of Rajasthan and Defendant No. 2 Omprakash both preferred two separate appeals. Learned first appellate court vide its judgment dated 09.08.1979 dismissed the appeal of Omprakash being not maintainable, as no decree was passed by the trial court against him. But, so far as appeal of State of Rajasthan is concerned, the same was allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set aside and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal before this Court. It is relevant to mention that no second appeal has been preferred by Defendant No. 2 Omprakash. 8. This Court while admitting second appeal on 24.01.1980 formulated following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance of the contract after the sale had become absolute in his favour as per Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules? (2) Whether the Collector could re-sell the shop in question even though the bid was not rejected by the State Government under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules and the same had become absolutely in favour of the appellant?" 9. During pendency of the appeal, sole appellant Jagannath expired and in his place, his legal heirs as well as one Mahesh Kumar, who claimed himself as legal representative on the basis of Will, were allowed to be impleaded as party to the appeal. 10. It is relevant to mention that from order sheet dated 13.10.1993 of this Court, it appears that learned counsel for the appellant submitted that parties had arrived at a compromise outside the Court and the said compromise was also filed in the court, but the same could not be verified in absence of Respondent No. 2. This Court issued notice to Respondent No. 2 to appear in person before this Court, so as to get the compromise verified. It appears that despite service of notice, Respondent No. 2 did not appear before this Court. 11. It is also relevant to mention that initially Shri D.K. Soral, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and submitted before this Court on 12.02.1993 that Respondent No. 2 has no concern with this appeal and as such he has instructed him not to appear. Mr. 11. It is also relevant to mention that initially Shri D.K. Soral, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and submitted before this Court on 12.02.1993 that Respondent No. 2 has no concern with this appeal and as such he has instructed him not to appear. Mr. D.K. Soral, learned counsel was allowed to withdraw from the case. 12. From the above proceedings, it appears that so far as Respondent No. 2 Omprakash is concerned, he had settled the matter with the appellant, therefore, neither he preferred second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court nor he contested this second appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that shop in dispute was put to auction by competent Committee constituted under the Rules of 1967, bid of the appellant i.e. Rs. 2,600/- was highest, the appellant also deposited 1/10th amount i.e. Rs. 260/- at the spot and thereafter, Defendant No. 1 confirmed the sale and informed the appellant to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 2,340/-, which was deposited by him in time. Thereafter, the appellant was informed to submit non-judicial stamps of Rs. 102/- to execute the Sale Certificate, the appellant purchased the non-judicial stamps and submitted the same before Defendant No. 1 duly signed by him. However, for one reason or the other, the Sale Certificate was not executed by Defendant No. 1 and a threatening was given to him for re-auctioning the disputed shop, therefore, the present suit was filed, which was decreed by the trial court. 14. He further submitted that learned first appellate court set aside judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the basis of judgment of this Court delivered in case Moolchand v. Haricharan & Others, reported in 1974 WLN(UC) VOL. I, Page 203 , which was not applicable on the facts and law both, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. He further submitted that Rule 14 of the Rules of 1967 was applicable only up to date, the sale is not confirmed, but as and when the sale is confirmed and remaining amount is deposited, then sale becomes absolute as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1967 and thereafter, nothing remains except to issue Sale Certificate under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1967. Provisions of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules of 1967 have not been considered in Moolchand's case(supra). He further submitted that bid of the appellant, which was accepted by Defendant No. 1 in the present case, has not been cancelled till date, therefore, Moolchand's case was not applicable and learned first appellate court wrongly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, which is liable to be restored. 16. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 defended the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 17. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment passed by first appellate court. 18. This Court in Moolchand's case(supra) considered Rule 14 of the Rules of 1967 and held that State Government has reserved its right to reject any bid without assigning any reason therefor. Learned first appellate court has relied upon Moolchand's case. A bare perusal of the judgment delivered in Moolchand's case will reveal that provisions of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules of 1967 were neither referred nor examined. Further, the highest bid of appellant, which was accepted, has not been cancelled till date. Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules of 1967 are reproduced as under: "15. Sale when to become absolute.-(1) Where full price of the Nazul/Devsthan Building put to sale by public auction has been deposited by the purchaser within the time specified in sub-rule (1) of Rule 12, the committee shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. (2) Where a tenant of the Nazul/Devsthan Building has executed agreement specified in sub-rule(2) of Rule 12, the Committee shall make an order confirming the sale and convey its decision to the purchaser by registered post. Such purchaser shall have to execute a mortgage deed and get it duly registered at his own expense in respect of the remaining purchase money in Form "E" and shall deliver it to the Chairman of the Committee and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. 16. Certificate to purchaser. Such purchaser shall have to execute a mortgage deed and get it duly registered at his own expense in respect of the remaining purchase money in Form "E" and shall deliver it to the Chairman of the Committee and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. 16. Certificate to purchaser. - (1) Where a sale of Nazul/Devsthan property has become absolute, the Chairman of the committee shall, on behalf of the Governor, grant a certificate of the property in Form "F" specifying the details of the property sold and the name of the person who at the time of the sale is declared to be the purchaser. (2) Such sale certificate shall be written on requisite non-judicial stamps to be furnished by the purchaser and shall bear the data on which the sale became absolute. The expenses of registration of such sale certificate shall also be borne by the purchaser." 19. From the scheme of Rules of 1967 it is clear that as per Rule 5, a proclamation of the intended sale is to be issued. Mode of making proclamation is mentioned under Rule 6. Thereafter, time of sale and adjournment of sale have been provided under Rules 7 and 8. As per Rule 9, every bidder at the auction shall have to deposit the amount equal to 10% of the reserve price of the property put to auction as security money. Rule 10 provides about deposit by purchaser and re-sale on default. Rule 11 relates to acceptance of bid by the Committee. Time for payment in full of purchase money is given under Rule 12. Thereafter, procedure for default of payment is prescribed under Rule 13. Rule 14 provides about rejection of offer by State Government and Rule 15 provides about sale when to become absolute. From the language of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1967 it is clear that where full price of the Nazul/Devsthan Building put to sale by public auction has been deposited by the purchaser within the time specified in sub-rule(1) of Rule 12, the Committee shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. From the language of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1967 it is clear that where full price of the Nazul/Devsthan Building put to sale by public auction has been deposited by the purchaser within the time specified in sub-rule(1) of Rule 12, the Committee shall make an order confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become absolute. As per Rule 16 of the Rules of 1967, where a sale of Nazul/Devsthan property has become absolute, the Chairman of the committee shall, on behalf of the Governor, grant a certificate of the property in Form "F" specifying the details of the property sold and the name of the person, who at the time of the sale is declared to be the purchaser. 20. So far as facts of the present case are concerned, there is no dispute that disputed shop was put to auction. Trial court has held that the appellant was highest bidder. The said finding has not been set aside by first appellate court also. The appellant deposited 1/10th amount at the spot. Exhibit-2, a notice dated 24.05.1968 was sent to the appellant informing him that his highest bid of Rs. 2,600/- has been accepted/sanctioned and now he should deposit remaining amount of Rs. 2,340/- within a period of 15 days, which was deposited by the appellant in time i.e. on 06.06.1968 vide Challan, which is on record. Thereafter, the appellant also furnished non-judicial stamps for execution of Sale Certificate, but the same was not executed. A notice under Section 80 C.P.C.(Exhibit-5) was served upon (1) Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department(Nazul), Rajasthan, Jaipur; (2) The Officer on Special duty, Nazul Buildings, Rajasthan, Jaipur and (3) The Collector, Bharatpur, but no Sale Certificate was issued in favour of appellant. In these circumstances, present suit was filed. 21. It is relevant to mention that the appellant is in possession of shop in dispute since 1959 as tenant and at present also the appellant is in actual physical possession of it. 22. Learned trial court after considering the evidence available on record decreed the suit. First appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court only on the basis of above-referred judgment delivered in Moolchand's case. 23. It is relevant to mention that auction dated 13.01.1968 has not been cancelled till date. Learned counsel for the State is unable to show any evidence in this regard. First appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court only on the basis of above-referred judgment delivered in Moolchand's case. 23. It is relevant to mention that auction dated 13.01.1968 has not been cancelled till date. Learned counsel for the State is unable to show any evidence in this regard. So far as acceptance of bid of the appellant is concerned, the same is proved from Exhibit-2, notice dated 24.05.1968 wherein it is mentioned that his bid for auction dated 13.01.1968 is sanctioned and he is required to deposit remaining amount of Rs. 2,340/- within a period of 15 days. Although, Omprakash filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead him as party and he was impleaded as Defendant No. 2, but it is clear that he is not contesting the matter. In these circumstances, I am of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, judgment delivered in Moolchand's case(supra) is not applicable on the present case on facts and law both and it was wrongly relied upon by the first appellate court, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is liable to be set aside and both the questions of law formulated in the present case are required to be answered in favour of the appellant. The plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance of the contract and concerned Collector cannot re-sell the shop in question, as bid of the appellant was not rejected by the State Government under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1967. 24. In view of above discussions, second appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree dated 09.08.1979 passed by first appellate court is set aside and judgment and decree dated 19.04.1976 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Bharatpur is restored. 25. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.Second appeal allowed. *******