CHANDGI RAM Vs. MOONGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of four connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 210 to 213 of 1970, as common questions of law and fact arise in them. It is agreed by the counsel for the parties that the decision in one of them will govern the others as well. I will give the facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 210 of 1970.

(2.) THERE were some evacuee lands in village Kalar Bhaini, District Hissar, and in order to give the same to landless Harijans, the Department of Rehabilitation auctioned it on 19th July, 1968; Moonga and his brother Shishu Ram, respondents 1 and 2 have the highest bid for land measuring 24 Kanals. They also paid Rs. 400/- as initial deposit on the spot to the Naib Tehsildar (Sales), who conducted the auction and obtained a receipt from him. Their bid was, consequently, accepted on that very day. After the expiry of seen days from the acceptance of the bid, Chandgi Ram and Mahla Ram, appellants, made an application for setting aside the sale in favour of respondents 1 and 2. This application, though addressed to the Settlement Officer (Sales), respondent No. 5, was made to Shrimati Om Prabha Jain, the then Revenue Minister, Haryana. It is alleged by respondents 1 and 2, that Chandgi Ram was the son of the real uncle of Shri Dalbir Singh, Member of Parliament. On 29th July, 1968, Shrimati Om Prabha Jain directed the Settlement Officer to make a thorough enquiry into the said application before confirming the action in favour of respondents 1 and 2. It was further directed that if need be, the land be re-auctioned. On 11th September, 1968, respondent No. 5 accepted that application and set aside the sale. A direction was also issued that the land be reauctioned. Against that decision, respondents 1 and 2 went in appeal before the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 4 who, on 12 th November, 1968, dismissed the same. Soon thereafter, respondents 1 and 2 filed a writ petition in this Court and it was accepted by Jain J, on 10th February, 1970. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 had not given any definite finding to the effect that there was any material irregularity or fraud in the conduct of sale as required by Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, hereinafter called the Rules. It was also held that there was no finding by respondent No. 4 that any substantial injury had resulted to the appellants by reason of the alleged irregularity or fraud. In the absence of these two findings, according to the learned Judge, the sale could not be set aside under Rule 92. An argument was raised by the counsel for the appellants before the learned Judge that Rule 92 had no application to the present case and the sale was not set aside by respondent No. 4 under that rule. According to the counsel, respondent No. 5, had not confirmed the sale, which he was required to do under Rule 90. This argument was repelled by the learned Judge, who was of the opinion that the proceedings were started under Rule 92 and respondent No. 5 had specifically mentioned in his order dated 11th September, 1968, that the sale was set aside. There was no other rule under which a sale could be set aside or the objections for setting aside the sale could be entertained. As a result, the learned Judge quashed the orders made by respondents 4 and 5 holding them to be without jurisdiction. Chandi Ram and Mahla Ram have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal against that decision.

(3.) UNDER Rule 90 (8), the person declared to be the highest bidder for the property at the public auction has to pay a deposit not exceeding 25 per cent of the amount of his bid to the Officer conducting the sale. If he commits a default in making this deposit, the property auctioned would be re-sold. According to Rule 90 (9) (B), where the highest bidder, whose bid has been provisionally accepted, resiles from the bid before its approval is communicated to him, 5 per cent, of the amount deposited by him under Rule 90 (8) would be forfeited to the Government Under Rule 90 (10), the bid, in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted would be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or any officer appointed by him for the purpose. According to the proviso to this sub-rule, no bid would be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days of the auction. Under Rule 90 (11), the intimation of the approval or rejection of the bid would be given to the highest bidder, and if the bid is approved, the auction-purchaser would deposit the balance of the purchase money within a specified time. According to Rule 90 (14), if the auction-purchaser fails to deposit the balance of the purchase money within the period specified, the initial deposit made by him would be liable to forfeiture. Under Rule 90 (15), when the purchase money has been realised in full from the auction-purchaser, the Managing Officer would be issue to him a sale certificate. It would be noticed that according to the proviso to Rule 90 (10), the highest bid, in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted, would not be approved before the expiry of seven days from the date of the auction. During the said period, a person, who complains of some irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale, is allowed to make an application under Rule 92 (1), the Settlement Commissioner or any officer, authorised by him in that behalf to approve the acceptance of the bid, for setting aside the sale. If the sale is made by public auction and not by inviting tenders, then that application has to be made within seven days from the acceptance of the bid under Rule 92 (2) (a ). Rule 92 reads