(1.) Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not confirming the auction even though the petitioner was the higher bider. Mr. Chhaju Ram Dahiya has approached this Court through the present petition. Firstly the factual matrix. Aggrieved land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas (approximately 1270 sq. yards) in village Khairpur, tehsil and district Sirsa was a part of evacuee propery which the respondents decided to dispose of in the public auction. Petitioner avers that suffcient notice was given to the punlic large. Proclamation was issued on the 25th of March, 1990. Even otherwise wide publicity was given. After completing the requirement of lawl, the property was actually aunctioned on the 26th of March, 1990. A reserved price of Rs. 200 per sq. yard was fixed as a result of which the property could be sodl for a total value of Rs. 2,54,000/-. A number of persons participated in the auction. The petitioner, however, was the highest bidder as he had offered Rs. 2,60,400/- that is approximately Rs. 205 per sq. yard. He also deposited an amount of Rs. 65,100/- in favour of the respondent No. 2. The receipt has been produced as Annexure P-1. This Auctioin was arbitrarily disapproved by the respondents and the petitoiner came to know abot the order ony after the inspection of the order on July 14, 1990. This order has been challenged as being totally arbitrary and illegal. It has been specifically averred that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before the authority decided to disapprove the auction. It has also been averted in the petition that the property in question was under unauthorised occupation of one Shri Tara Singh son of Shri Ami Chand. The land in question, therefore, could not have fetched the price mentioned by the respondents in the order Annexure P-2.
(2.) Written statement has been filed dby the Joint Sectretary to Government, Haryana on behalf of the respondents. Besiders raising certain preliminary objections, none of which was pressed at the hearing of the case, it has been averred that the prevailing market price of Rs. 300/- per sq. yard ans a reserved price of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard had been wrongly fixed. In fact the suggestion is that the Naib Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Sirsa, should have got the reserved price re-fixed before proceeding to auction the property. It has been averred that there is not provision of law under which it may be incumbent upon the athority to be afford an opportunity of being heard to the concerned person. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 3199 of 1977 decided oin October 17, 1977. Rest of the averments have also been controverted.
(3.) The matter had come up for hearing before me originally on March 19, 1991. On that date, I had adjourned the case to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to produce proof of the fact that the adjourned property or properties had been sold at a price ranging from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 350/- per sq. yard. When the matter came up for hearing on the next day of hearing, he produced a letter from the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana which reads as under:-