ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Urban evacuee plot No. 72, measuring 48 kanals 14 Marlas, bearing khasra Nos. 2464, 2468, 2470, 2471 and 2480, situated at Kotkapura, District Faridkot, was put to auction on March 11, 1968, and the highest bid was that of the petitioner for Rs. 24250/-. The petitioner deposited the initial amount of Rs. 4850/- at the time of auction. The bid offered by him was subject to confirmation by the Settlement Commissioner under Rule 90(10) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules (hereafter the Rules). The Settlement Commissioner did not confirm the bid of the petitioner vide order dated September 2, 1972 (P.5) and directed that the earnest money already deposited by him be refunded to him. The land bearing khasra Nos. 2464 and 2468 was transferred to the Education Department for the extension of the play-ground of an adjoining Higher Secondary School. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Commissioner P.5 declining to confirm the bid of the petitioner and the same was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated January 14, 1974 (P.6). The petitioner then moved a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereafter the Act) which was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) vide order dated November 12, 1974 (P.7). The petitioner has assailed the orders P.5, P.6 and P.7 in the present writ. He has also assailed the order relating to the transfer of khasra Nos. 2464 and 2468 in favour of the Education Department for the extension of the play-ground of an adjoining Higher Secondary School.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Settlement Commissioner could decline the confirmation of the bid of the petitioner under Rule 90(10) on the same grounds for which the sale could be set aside under Rule 92 of the Rules. The argument proceeds that since there was no fraud or irregularity in the publication or conduct of the sale in which the petitioner offered the highest bid, the Settlement Commissioner could not withhold his confirmation. The contention is without merit. The Settlement Commissioner is competent to withhold his approval/confirmation of the bid under Rule 90(10) even in the absence of a finding of fraud or misconduct in the publication or conduct of the sale.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule 90(10) is ultra vires the Constitution inasmuch as it confers arbitrary and unguided power upon the Settlement Commissioner to confirm or not to confirm any bid. This contention is also without merit. The scheme of the Act and the Rules does indicate that the acquired properties when auctioned should fetch maximum price. It is in this context that it has been provided under Rule 90(10) that the highest bid offered at the time of auction shall be subject to the approval/confirmation by the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner has thus to exercise his discretion under Rule 90(10) after forming an opinion whether the highest bid offered is the maximum price of the property auctioned or not. The Act and the Rules, therefore, provide sufficient guidelines in the matter of exercise of discretion by the Settlement Commissioner under Rule 90(10). It cannot, therefore, be held ultra vires the Constitution.