MANGU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ No. 2051 of 1971 Mangu Ram v. State of Haryana and others and Civil Writ No. 2639 of 1971 Sarwan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, as the matter involved in both the petitions is the same.

(2.) In an open auction of evacuee property held on December 31, 1967, by the Tehsildar (Sales) Kaithal, Mangu Ram, petitioner, purchased land measuring 21 Kanals, 7 Marlas, and Sarwan Singh purchased two pieces of land measuring 35 kanals, 3 marlas and 30 kanals and 16 Marlas. They were the highest bidders and deposited 20 per cent of their bids with the officer conducting the sale. But those sales were subject to confirmation by the Settlement Commissioner or an Officer appointed by him for this purpose under Rule 90(10) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. No order was passed either confirming the sales or rejecting them by the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose. Respondent No. 6 Nauhriya Ram moved an application for purchase of the said land which had been auctioned in favour of Sarwan Singh and Mangu Ram, petitioners, at a reserve price on the ground of his long occupation. The petitioners came to know of this fact and made an application to the Revenue Minister, Haryana not to sell the land to respondent No. 6. The matter was taken up by the Revenue Minister who asked for a report from the Tehsildar (Sales) and the Settlement Officer (Sales) for discussion. Ultimately, on June 29, 1971, the Settlement Officer (Sales), issued the following order :-

(3.) It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no right to maintain the petition as they acquired no right in the land because of the reason that the sales were not confirmed in their favour. I do not agree with this submission. The lands were put to auction under Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, and the petitioners were the highest bidders. The Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him in this behalf had to accept those bids under the said rule. That is a statutory power which has to be exercised and has not been exercised by him so far. It has not been shown under which provision of the rules the Revenue Minister, interfered in this matter and passed an order setting aside the sales in favour of the petitioners and ordered the sale of the land in favour of respondent No. 6 at a price mentioned in the said order. The provisions with regard to sale of evacuee property by auction has been made in Rule 90 ibid and no Government instruction can over-ride the provisions of that rule unless the rule is amended. Under Rules 87 and 88, the Chief Settlement Commissioner can issue certain instructions but no such instruction has been brought to my notice under which the Revenue Minister has the authority to set aside the auctions publicly held and to order transfer of evacuee land in favour of a particular person at a reserve price. The action of the Revenue Minister is without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to stand as it affects the right of the petitioners to purchase the land for which they had made the highest bid. The jurisdiction to accept the bid or reject it lies with the Settlement Commissioner and not the Government or the Revenue Minister. The impugned order must be quashed. According to Rules 90 and 92 if the auction once held is set aside for any reason the property has to be resold by public auction. I have not been shown any rule under which the property can be withdrawn from the public auction and then sold by private negotiations. From that point of view also, the order directing the sale of the land in favour of respondent No. 6 is without jurisdiction.