BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - CM No.13493 of 2011 Application for restoration of the writ petition at its original number is allowed. Civil Writ Petition No.16253 of 1989

(2.) The writ petition challenges the decision of the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, arrayed as respondent No.4, setting aside the auction sale held as per the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Property. The petitioner was admittedly declared the highest bidder for three items of properties described in khasra Nos.54//17/2 which was described however in the auction notice as 54//17/25, 24 and 17/4 in Village Uchat, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. After the auction was held, the 5th respondent herein, made a complaint for setting aside the sale contending, inter alia, that his father had been in possession of the properties for more than 50 years and he was prepared to offer higher price. His contention was the property itself was mis-described in one of the khasra numbers, namely, 54//17/2 was wrongly described as 54//17/25. The Additional Officer before whom the objection was taken rejected the complaint but in a revision filed by the 5th respondent to the 4th respondent. The authority set it aside on the only ground that there was mis-description of property.

(3.) The learned counsel points out that it was not as if there was any particular prejudice shown by the mis-description and even in the warrant of delivery, the property was correctly shown by the khasra number. The complaint itself was not in accordance with the relevant rules, for, it required the complainant to make through Rule 9(b) to deposit a sum equivalent to the highest bid plus 20% of the earnest money along with an undertaking to buy the property at his enhanced value if as a result of such re-auction the property did not fetch a higher price than the amount deposited.