GOBIND RAM BATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ultimate question of law on the decision of which the fate of this case depends, on which question no direct judgment of any Court has been cited before me by either side, is whether a competent authority is or is not, bound to support with reasons his order refusing to accept the highest bid given at a public auction of any acquired evacuee property. This question has arisen in regard to property no. B II. 551 situate in Nawanshahr of which the reserve price was Rs. 945/ -. At a public auction of that property held on August 4, 1962, highest bid of Rs. 1,300/was given by Gobind Ram Batra petitioner. Having paid Rs. 130/- on account of one tenth of the amount of the bid, the petition did not hear anything further in connection with the approval of the bid and was ultimately forced to make an application for approval of the bid to the Regional Settlement Commissioner on april 17, 1963. Certain developments had in the meantime taken place of which the petitioner was obviously not aware. Objections against the sale of acquired evacuee property by public auction can be filed within seven days of the acceptance of the bid under Rule 99 (2) (a) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called the Compensation Rules ). The bid of the petitioner not having been accepted, cause of action for filing any such objections had not yet properly arisen, when respondents 5 and 6 filed objections against the sale between the 6th and 11th of August, 1962. After recording the evidence of the objectors during September and October, 1962, the Managing officer on November 6, 1962, sent for and later obtained the report of the assistant Verification Officer.

(2.) TO resume the thread of the petitioner's story the office of the Regional settlement Commissioner could not trace the file of auction, and, therefore, issued an order on the petitioner's application for confirmation dated April 17, 1963, to reconstruct the file. On the reconstructed file, order dated May 2, 1963, was passed accepting the petitioner's bid. In consequence of that order, the petitioner paid the balance of the price. Possession of the property was given to the petitioner on September 27, 1963, and the sale certificate in respect thereof was granted to him on January 9, 1964.

(3.) UTTER lack of co-ordination in the office of the Rehabilitation Authorities resulted in another complication. On the one hand proceedings for confirmation and completion of petitioner's sale were going on in the reconstructed file; on the other side the Regional Settlement Commissioner is stated to have issued letter dated september 11, 1963, to the petitioner informing him that the sale had not been confirmed, on the basis of orders passed by him on the original file which had since been traced out. Petitioner denies the receipt of any such letter and the respondents have not pressed that communication into service during the course of arguments. Not only this, but the property as put to reauction on September 18, 1963, and the highest bid for the same was given by Shrimati Durga Devi respondent No. 7. It is unnecessary to give the details of that auction as the same has been finally set aside, and neither the setting aside of that auction is any more in dispute, nor Durga Devi has taken any interest in the writ proceedings.