BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had approached this court by filing the present petition challenging the order dated 6.8.1986 (Annexure-P3) passed by Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ''the Settlement Commissioner'') and notice dated 28.8.1986 (Annexure-P5) sent to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner.

(2.) Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the land bearing khasra No. 434/16/1, 25/2 and 437/22/2, 23, 24 and 25, measuring 26 kanals and 9 marlas, situated in Mauja Hansi, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar was surplus evacuee land, which had been transferred to the State Government in Package Deal. This kind of land was to be disposed of by way of auction for allotment. The State Government framed rules for the purpose, known as the Rules for the Sale of Surplus Rural Evacuee Properties (for short, ''the Rules''). The land in question was put to auction in terms of the aforesaid Rules on 5.8.1969. Respondent No. 3 was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The aforesaid bid was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Sale) on 12.9.1969. The entire sale consideration was deposited by respondent No. 3 on 9.2.1970. Thereafter, even a sale certificate was also issued in his favour. The transfer was effected in the revenue record by mutation (Annexure-P1). On 6.2.1978, the petitioner purchased the aforesaid land from respondent No. 3 on payment of Rs. 10,000/-, which was the market value at that time. After purchasing the land, the petitioner spent Rs. 20,000/- in making the same cultivable and also arranging the water course. On 9.8.1984, a notice was issued to the petitioner for appearance on 21.9.1984. Vide order dated 6.8.1986 (Annexure-P3), the Settlement Commissioner set aside the auction of the land in favour of respondent No. 3 and directed for its re-auction. It is against this order that the petitioner, who is a subsequent buyer of the land from respondent No. 3, is before this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon an order dated 4.11.1982 passed by this court in C.W.P. No. 832 of 1975- Roshan Lal v. The State of Haryana and others ; Mohinder Singh v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, 1996 2 RRR 246; Jaswant Kaur v. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner, Ludhiana, 1996 2 RRR 392 and Thakar Singh v. State of Punjab,2009 155 PunLR 125, submitted that sale of land in the present case was effected in an auction, which was held on 5.8.1969. The same was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Sale) on 12.9.1969. On payment of the entire auction price, even the sale certificate was also issued in favour of respondent No. 3 on 9.2.1970. To cancel the auction after 16 years of even issuance of sale certificate is totally arbitrary. The provisions of the Rules, under which the auction was conducted, do not permit the same. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner. All what is pointed out in the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner is that the reserve price of the property was wrongly fixed at a lower rate and further that the land situated at two different locations was clubbed together. The order was passed by the Settlement Commissioner on a reference made to him by the Deputy District Attorney, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana. The petitioner or his vendor having not been at fault or in connivance with the officials should not be made to suffer for any alleged irregularity at their end. Even otherwise, the action of re-calling of an order setting aside the auction sale, which was effected 17 years prior thereto is also arbitrary and inequitable. Even if there is no period prescribed for exercise of power under Rule 11 of the Rules, still the same has to be within reasonable time.