Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1803 (PNJ)

Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-12-11

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.12957 of 2012 (Raghbir Singh Versus State of Haryana & others), 16284 of 2012 (Geeta Rani Versus State of Haryana & others), 16467 of 2012 (Savita Arya Versus State of Haryana & others) and 19086 of 2012 (Rajinder Versus State of Haryana & others. The facts are being taken from CWP No.12957 of 2012. 2. All the petitioners claim that an auction of a land was allowed in their favour, which has subsequently not been confirmed. After lapse of considerable period of time, the sale by way of auction held in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled and accordingly they have filed the petitions to impugn the orders so passed. 3. Publication was made for auction of an evacuee land, situated in District Yamuna Nagar by respondent No.4 in the year 2007. The auction was held on 15.3.2007. The petitioner participated and was successful bidder for a land measuring 35 kanals 7 marlas. He has deposited 1/8th share amounting to Rs.1,89,375/- out of the total amount of Rs.15,15,000/- in the treasury. The petitioner pleads that the State Government has formulated a policy that the evacuee land put to auction shall be delivered to its purchaser within a period of one month. 4. However, petitioner did not receive any message or reply about the said auction and accordingly filed a representation on 22.12.2007. The petitioner was assured that his case has been sent to the Head Office and further progress shall be conveyed to him. The petitioner waited for three years when he filed another representation on 8.7.2010. 5. Respondent No.4 forwarded the request/representation to respondent No.1 on 14.7.2010. The petitioner filed yet another representation on 7.3.2011 to which, no response was received. He filed yet another representation on 15.3.2011 and has ultimately received a reply that the case file has been sent to respondent No.4 for taking a decision. Finally, the petitioner was informed that the auction held on 15.3.2007 was set aside as long time had elapsed between the auction and the confirmation. 6. When respondent No.4 issued a letter to the petitioner on 11.6.2012, the petitioner filed a petition on 9.7.2012 to challenge the order passed by the respondents. 7. Similar are the facts in other cases. The date of auction in CWP No.16467 of 2012 is the same. 6. When respondent No.4 issued a letter to the petitioner on 11.6.2012, the petitioner filed a petition on 9.7.2012 to challenge the order passed by the respondents. 7. Similar are the facts in other cases. The date of auction in CWP No.16467 of 2012 is the same. The petitioner deposited 1/8th of the auction amount on 16.3.2007. In this case also, he did not receive any reply till 3.1.2008. The petitioner has filed various representations when the decision was communicated to him on 11.6.2012 that the auction was cancelled. The petitioner filed the petition on 24.8.2012. 8. Similar are the facts in CWP No.16284 of 2012 with slight variation of dates of representations etc. The final communication in this is also dated 11.6.2012, which has promoted the petitioner to approach this court through this writ petition. 9. Similar are the facts in CWP No.19086 of 2012. 10. Almost identical written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the preliminary submissions it is stated that proviso to Rule 6(xiii) of Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules, 2011 (for short “the Rules) provides that if due to any reason, no orders are passed on the highest bid within three months from the date of auction, then the auction purchaser shall be at liberty to apply for refund of the earnest money and the same shall be immediately refunded after collecting sale file from the Commissioner (Sales). If this has been so done in the present cases, the permission to withdraw the amount ought to have been allowed. As per the respondents, no challenge is raised to the rule position. It is also pointed out that the petitioners in the alternative had prayed for release of their earnest money, which has been permitted. 11. As is apparent, the auction in this case was held in the year 2007. The writ petitions have been filed in the year 2012. Respondents would accordingly plead that these writ petitions suffer from delay and latches and, thus, liable to be dismissed on this ground. The petitioners statedly have not availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 8 of the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008 (for short “the Act”) which has made a provision for preferring a revision against the order within a period of 60 days. The petitioners statedly have not availed the alternative remedy available to them under Section 8 of the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008 (for short “the Act”) which has made a provision for preferring a revision against the order within a period of 60 days. The petitioners would also have another remedy to approach the State Government under Section 9 of the Act. 12. It is otherwise stated that the land in question is recorded in the ownership and occupation of the Central Government and it was empowered to sell it through public auction or through restricted auction to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. It is accordingly stated that the land was put to restricted auction on 15.3.2007 and the highest bid given by the petitioners is acknowledged. It is, however, stated that the auction was subject to the approval of the competent authority. It is then pointed out that before enactment of the Act of 2008 and Rules framed in 2011, the competent authority for confirmation of such sale was District Revenue Officer of the concerned District in the capacity of Settlement Officer (Sales). After enactment of Act of 2008, such powers are vested in the Deputy Commissioner of the District as Commissioner (Sales). It is then disclosed that the Government vide its letter dated 26.3.2007 stayed the auction of evacuee properties and called for the files of the auctioned land which were held from 2001 to 2007 for examination by the Government. The sale files of the land in question were accordingly sent by the Naib Tehsildar in March, 2007. Some clarifications were obtained in October, 2008. Representation made by the petitioners was received in the Headquarters, but the sale files could not be returned as the matter was under examination. The files were retained as some amendments were under consideration to be incorporated in the Act of 2008, which were so incorporated vide the Act No.5 of 2010. Thereafter, the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules, 2011 were finalised. The file in question was accordingly sent to Tehsildar (Sales) on 4.2.2011. 13. The auction files were in this manner placed before the Deputy Commissioner for passing an appropriate order, who called for the report with regard to the present status of the land. Thereafter, the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Rules, 2011 were finalised. The file in question was accordingly sent to Tehsildar (Sales) on 4.2.2011. 13. The auction files were in this manner placed before the Deputy Commissioner for passing an appropriate order, who called for the report with regard to the present status of the land. After considering the issues, he found that the auction was not in public interest and accordingly set aside the sale on 31.5.2012. The auction purchasers were accordingly informed to seek refund of the earnest money through a communication dated 11.6.2012. The respondents accordingly would plead that there is no vested right which would accrue in favour of the petitioners being the highest bidders and they had only a right of consideration for confirmation of sale, but could not presume that the same would be confirmed in their favour. The respondents accordingly would plead for dismissal of the writ petitions. 14. The counsel for the petitioners would, however, submit that the justification as offered in the reply is no ground to reject the claim of the petitioners once they had given the highest bid. As per the counsel, the Government ought to have considered this issue before putting the land to auction and once the land was put to auction, the confirmation cannot be declined on the ground that there is a delay in confirmation of the auctiuon. The delay is clearly attributed to the respondents for which the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. 15. The counsel has also placed before me two judgments in support of his plea. In the case of Thakar Singh Versus State of Punjab, [2009(1) Law Herald (P&H) 366] : 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 778 and Jarnail Singh Versus Joint Secretary, 1999(3) RCR(Civil) 440. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. The ratio of law as it would emerge from Thakar Singh’s case (supra) cannot apply to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the sale of the evacuee land was held by way of auction in the said case, but the sale had been duly confirmed. Thereafter the sale was cancelled by the Chief Sales Commissioner on the ground that there were omissions and irregularities in the proclamation. No doubt, the sale of the evacuee land was held by way of auction in the said case, but the sale had been duly confirmed. Thereafter the sale was cancelled by the Chief Sales Commissioner on the ground that there were omissions and irregularities in the proclamation. Referring to the provisions of Section 10(2), it is held that the sales could be cancelled if fraud was played by auction purchaser for which there was no allegation. The sale otherwise was also set- aside after 17 years and so the order of cancellation was held not sustainable. 17. Similarly, in Jarnail Singh’s case (supra), the court has observed that auction can be set aside only if some fraud or irregularity has been committed in the conduct of auction. 18. The reasons for which the auction in this case has not been confirmed have been disclosed in detail in the reply. This auction was held in the year 2007. At that stage, the amendment was being proposed to the provisions of Haryana Evacuee Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 2008, which ultimately was enacted in the year 2008. Subsequently, the amendments were also under consideration which were incorporated in the year 2010. Rules under the Act were framed in 2011 and this is advanced as a reason to call for all the auction files and these were kept at the Headquarters to be released once the rule position has been finalised so that such sales by way of auction could be confirmed by the competent authority as per the newly enacted provisions. 19. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Commissioner (Sales) has declined to confirm the auction sale as the files were put up before him after a period of five years in some cases and after more than 10 years in other. He accordingly found that confirmation of such sale held by way of auction would not be in public interest. The view which the Deputy Commissioner has formed would appear just and reasonable. The auction which was held in the year 2007 could not be so confirmed for a period of five years, by which time obviously the value of the property has increased manifold. If this auction is confirmed at this belated stage, it would be against the public interest and would benefit the auction purchasers alone. The auction which was held in the year 2007 could not be so confirmed for a period of five years, by which time obviously the value of the property has increased manifold. If this auction is confirmed at this belated stage, it would be against the public interest and would benefit the auction purchasers alone. Till the auction held is confirmed by the competent authority, the petitioners would not acquire any vested rights. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of State of Haryana and others Versus Kundan Lal and others, 2005(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 381. The court in this case has observed that unless the auction is confirmed by the competent authority and communicated to the auction purchaser, the competent authority can take any decision in the public interest and can also cancel the auction proceedings. The court has further held that highest bidder has no right to compel the authorities to accept his bid and confirm the sale in his favour. It is even observed that it would not be necessary to communicate the reasons for cancellation. This view has been formed after referring to number of precedents. The court has also culled out the principles which would emerge from these decisions and these are as under:- “(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/plots 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.” 20. In Guruswamy Versus State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 593, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the legality of the auction taken by Excise Commissioner to cancel the highest bid given by the appellant therein in an open auction held. In a given case, the reasons can also be gathered from the record maintained by the government/public authority.” 20. In Guruswamy Versus State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 593, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the legality of the auction taken by Excise Commissioner to cancel the highest bid given by the appellant therein in an open auction held. The court has observed that the reason for cancelling the sale to the effect that the Government would be able to get an extra amount of Rs.5,000/- a month as a revenue is certainly a good reason for cancellation. 21. In State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1975) 2 SCC 37, the court has observed that once the Government has declined to accept the highest bid in an auction, the auction becomes useless. Similar would be the effect when the Government refuses to accept the highest tender. 22. In Haridwar Singh Versus Bagun Sumbrui, AIR 1972 SC 1242 , the court has held that till confirmation of the bid is conveyed to the highest bidder, no concluded contract comes into existence. 23. That being the position in law, the plea by the petitioners that they have a vested right to seek confirmation of the highest bid which they have given and their challenge to the right of the respondents to decline acceptance of their highest bid, cannot be accepted as good or a valid reason in their support. The Deputy Commissioner has given valid and justifiable reasons to decline confirmation of this sale after lapse of time. There is no malafides or wrong act on the part of the authorities to keep the confirmation pending. There were justifiable reasons as the provisions of the law were being enacted and the authorities to confirm the sale also underwent change. This order to call for auction file from all around was not confined to the cases of the petitioners alone and, thus, it was a general decision of the respondents taken in the best interest of the public. I, therefore, do not find anything wrong in the action of the respondents in declining to confirm this auction and, thus, would not be inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 24. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------