ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evacuee agricultural land measuring 79 Kanals 14 Marlas in village Partal, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh, was put to restricted auction in which only Harijans could participate on 14th April, 1970. The highest bid offered was that of the petitioner for Rs. 7,700/-. The Settlement Officer confirmed the auction in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 30th April, 1970. The Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 13th December, 1974 (P.2) set aside the sale in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the reserve price of the land auctioned had been wongly assessed at Rs. 3,985/- instead of Rs. 14,346/-. The petitioner has assailed the order P-2 in the present writ.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the highest bid offered by the petitioner was confirmed by the Competent Authority [Settlement Officer (Sales)]. The petitioner deposited the entire sale price as well. The sale of land already approved in favour of the petitioner could not be set aside on the ground that its reserve price had not been correctly assessed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sale of Surplus Rural Evacuee Land/Properties (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) deals with complaints against the sale. It reads :-

(3.) It is not disputed that the sale of the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner could be set aside under the rules. It is obvious that the sale of land in favour of the petitioner which had admittedly been confirmed could only be set aside on the ground of material irregularity or a fraud in the publication or the conduct of the sale. The sale by auction of land in favour of the petitioner already confirmed could not be set aside on the ground that its reserve price had not been correctly assessed by the Rehabilitation Authorities. The Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commission has not found that there had occurred any material irregularity or fraud in the publication or the conduct of the sale. Under these circumstances the Deputy Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner could not set aside the sale by auction in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the reserve price of land had been incorrectly assessed. The impugned order P-2 is, therefore, liable to be set aside.