Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 956 (PNJ)

Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-07-29

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
JUDGMENT Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) and the revisional order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. Facts first. The land in question was put to auction on 15.06.1988. One Sat Parkash was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.31.500/- but the sale was not confirmed. Land was put to re-auction on 24.11.1989. This time petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 32,000/-, however, the sale was not confirmed. The land was again auctioned on 30.03.1990 and the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.32,000/-, but this time again the sale was also not confirmed. The land was put to auction again on 19.10.1990. This time also the petitioner was the highest bidder @ Rs.34,000/- against the reserved price of Rs.30,000/-. The Tehsildar (sales) forwarded the matter to ASO (Sales) for confirmation of the sale in favour of the petitioner. However, in the meantime, respondent No. 3 submitted his objection on 03.11.1990 (Annexure P-1) offering to purchase the land @ Rs.40,000/-. However, respondent No. 3 did not appear before the ASO (Sales) when the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was passed. The land was ordered to be re- auctioned vide impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner filed revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the present writ petition. 2. While issuing notice of motion, re-auction was stayed. Pursuant to the notice of motion, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the allegations levelled by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was a cryptic order wherein no reason was assigned by ASO (Sales). He further submits that the objection raised by respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-1 was time barred as the same was submitted beyond the period of 10 days provided in Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sales of Surplus Rural Properties. He further submits that the objection raised by respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-1 was time barred as the same was submitted beyond the period of 10 days provided in Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sales of Surplus Rural Properties. He next contended that even the revisional authority failed to appreciate the factual background of the case that this property did not fetch the adequate amount and it was put to auction for fourth time. Petitioner had been found to be the highest bidder in the three auctions including the last one. The revisional authority also failed to record any positive finding that any irregularity has taken place in the auction, referring to the relevant official record. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the two judgments of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab Financial Commissioner. Revenue, Punjab 1991 (1) RLR 334 and 1975 PLJ 128, Jagnandan Singh v. Union of India & Others. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that ASO (Sales) while passing the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2), was not obliged to assign any reason as the auction was cancelled in the public interest. He further submits that even if, the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was not an elaborate one by recording the reasons, that defect came to be cured by the revisional authority by passing the speaking order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3). He also submits that after receiving the objections vide Annexure P-1, another objection was received from respondent No. 3 on 31.12.1990, because of which the impugned orders came to be passed. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are recorded hereinafter. 6. It has gone undisputed on record that the land in question was put to auction for the first time on 15.06.1988. One Sat Parkash was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.31,500/-, but the same was not confirmed. The land was re-auctioned on 24.11.1989. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are recorded hereinafter. 6. It has gone undisputed on record that the land in question was put to auction for the first time on 15.06.1988. One Sat Parkash was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.31,500/-, but the same was not confirmed. The land was re-auctioned on 24.11.1989. However, this time the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.32,000/-, but the sale was not confirmed. Again, the auction took place on 30.03.1990. This time also the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.32,000/-, but the sale was again not confirmed. Thereafter, the land was put to auction for the fourth time on 19.10.1990 and the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs,34,000/- against the reserved price of Rs.30,000/- 7. The abovesaid background of the case would show that it was not a lucrative offer because of which the prospective buyers were not coming forward. In this view of the matter, entertaining the objection on behalf of respondent No. 3 and cancelling the auction vide impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was, on the face of it, arbitrary. 8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection was raised by respondent No. 3 after the period of limitation has also force and the same deserves to be accepted. Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sale of Surplus Rural Properties, which is applicable in the present case, makes it clear that such an objection can be raised within 10 days from the date of auction. Relevant part of Rule 9 reads as under:-- Complaints. Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sale of Surplus Rural Properties, which is applicable in the present case, makes it clear that such an objection can be raised within 10 days from the date of auction. Relevant part of Rule 9 reads as under:-- Complaints. Where a person desires that the sale of any property should not be approved under Rule 5(i)(2) or Rule 6(c)(2) or Rule 7(h) because of any alleged irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale (including the case of a sale by public auction in the notice of the sale) or on the ground of any transferee not being eligible to purchase the land in his occupation at fixed price, he may make an application to that effect to the High Court or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf to approve the acceptance of the bid or tender, as the case may be: Provided that every such application for setting aside a sale shall be made: a. Within 10 days of the said auction or order to the Tehsildar/Naib Tehsildar, (Sales) under Rule 7(a) 9. It is undisputed on record that the objection moved by respondent No. 3 was beyond the period of 10 days, provided under Rule 9. In this view of the matter, ASO (sales) was not even competent to entertain the objection raised by respondent No. 3 vide Annexure P-1. 10. There is not even a passing reference about the second objection, which was allegedly filed on 31.12.1990, in the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2). Even if filed, it would be also beyond the time stipulated in Rule 9, reproduced above. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2), which is stated to have been passed on objection, vide Annexure P-1, was an order without jurisdiction. 11. Similar issue arose before this Court in Jagnandan Singh's case (supra) and the relevant observation made by this Court in para 7 thereof, reads as under: A bare reading of the rule will show that an application for setting aside a sale under this rule shall be made within seven days from the date of the acceptance of the bid where the sale is made by public auction. There is no dispute that the sale in the instant case was made by public auction. There is no dispute that the sale in the instant case was made by public auction. Therefore, the objection application should have been filed within seven days. In the instant case, the auction took place on 9th February, 1965. This fact is not controverted by the respondents. Hence, the Tehsildar rightly dismissed the objection application as time-barred. I, therefore, hold that the Chief Settlement Commissioner should not have entertained the objection application and set aside the sale as it was time-barred. 12. Similarly, the revisional authority while passing the impugned order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3) fell into serious error of law, while not appreciating factual as well as legal aspect of the matter. Besides, the above said factual background that the property was not fetching the adequate amount, despite repeated auction having been held, has gone undisputed on record. 13. Further, the revisional authority failed to record any positive finding, referring to the relevant record that any material irregularity or fraud was committed in the auction proceedings held on 19.10.1990, wherein the petitioner was found highest bidder. 14. Under similar circumstances, this Court in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra), held as under: I have considered the respective stand of the parties' counsel and have gone through the paper book. There is no dispute that the auction was conducted by the Managing Officer when the property was knocked down in favour of Gurcharan Singh petitioner being the highest bidder for Rs.4150/- against reserve price of Rs.3750/-. Against the same, nobody had filed any objection. I am of the considered view that under Rule 90(2) of the Rules, the auction could be cancelled only if there is any material irregularity/fraud in conducting the same and because of which some body had sustained substantial injury. The law is well settled that mere inadequacy of price paid by a purchaser does not justify the setting aside of sale even under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code and even proof of substantial injury by itself does not empower the Settlement Authorities to reopen the sale. Harkishan Singh v. State of Punjab and others. In this case respondents were not able to show that some material irregularity or fraud in public auction or sale had been committed. 15. Harkishan Singh v. State of Punjab and others. In this case respondents were not able to show that some material irregularity or fraud in public auction or sale had been committed. 15. Once the specific time has already been provided under Rule 9 referred to hereinabove, the respondent authorities, on their own, could not have extended the same, while entertaining the belated objection from respondent No. 3, in that behalf. 16. It is also pertinent to note here that after submitting his objection vide Annexure P-1, respondent No. 3 did not appear before the ASO (Sales), at the time of passing of the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2). Thus, he might not be a bona fide purchaser. Had he been serious about the offer made by him, for purchasing the land in question @ of Rs.40,000/-, he would have certainly appeared before the ASO (Sales) on 22.04.1991. In the absence of any prospective buyer on a higher rate before ASO (Sales) on 22.04.1991, there was no occasion to cancel the auction held in favour of the petitioner, admittedly for a higher amount than the reserved price. In view of the above, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent authorities proceeded on wholly perverse and misconceived approach by passing the impugned orders, which cannot be sustained. 17. No other argument was raised. 18. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are hereby ordered to be set aside. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.