STATE OF HARYANA Vs. ASHA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evacuee land measuring 34 Kanals and 5 Marlas (nehri) in village Sulchani, Tehsil Hansi, District Hissar, which was a part of Package Deal Property, was put to auction restricted to Harijans on 17th of June, 1977 and the highest bid offered was that of Asha Ram respondent for Rs. 16,500/- against reserved price of Rs. 10,000/- . The respondent signed a memorandum of offer at the time of auction which contained a condition that the auction was subject to confirmation by the Settlement Commissioner or any other Officer appointed in this behalf and till the auction is confirmed and intimation thereof given to him, it will not be treated as sale. It was also provided that the Settlement Commissioner or the Officer shall not be bound to accept the highest bid and also shall not be bound to disclose the reasons therefor. A similar provisions is contained in the Rules for the sale of surplus rural evacuee land properties purchased from the Central Government. The relevant part of the Rules reads : -

(2.) It is thus clear that the highest bid of Rs. 16,500/- offered by Asha Ram respondent was subject to approval by the Settlement Commissioner or an Officer appointed by him for this purpose. The Settlement Commissioner has appointed Settlement Officer for exercising the discretion in the matter of approval of the highest bids in terms of R. 5(I) reproduced above. The auction file in which the highest bid was that of the respondent came up before the Settlement Officer on 12th of Oct., 1977. He recorded the following note on that date : AA "(Report of Patwari regarding Munadi is not on the file. Proclamation defective. Present: None.) In view of the defect at 'AA' above highest bid of Rs. 16,500/- received on 17-6-1977 is set aside with direction of resale."

(3.) The effect of the note of the Settlement Officer dated Oct. 12, 1977 is that he did not approve the highest bid of Rupees 16,500/- offered by the respondent. The question of setting aside the sale in favour of the respondent did not arise because the sale had so far not been made. The phraseology used by the Settlement Officer in his note dated Oct. 12, 1977 is obviously incorrect. It is significant that the Settlement Officer passed the order dated Oct. 12, 1977 suo motu and not as a consequence of an objection petition filed by anybody against the auction. The respondent filed a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer dated Oct. 12, 1977 which has dismissed by the Deputy, Secretary, rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated Nov. 30, 1977. The respondent pleaded before the Settlement Commissioner that Munadi of the auction had been made in the village by the peon of the Rehabilitation Department and a report to that effect had also been entered in the Roznamcha of the Patwari. The Settlement Commissioner still did not feel inclined o set aside the order of the Settlement Officer dated Oct. 12, 1977 and further to approve the bid of the respondent on the ground that this very land had been put to auction in 1968 and the highest bid offered was Rs. 17,000/- and further only two persons had participated in the auction which took place on 17th June, 1977 which was indicative that fair opportunity had not been given to eligible persons to offer bids in the auction.