RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) and the revisional order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. Facts first.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion, re-auction was stayed. Pursuant to the notice of motion, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the allegations levelled by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was a cryptic order wherein no reason was assigned by ASO (Sales). He further submits that the objection raised by respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-1 was time barred as the same was submitted beyond the period of 10 days provided in Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sales of Surplus Rural Properties. He next contended that even the revisional authority failed to appreciate the factual background of the case that this property did not fetch the adequate amount and it was put to auction for fourth time. Petitioner had been found to be the highest bidder in the three auctions including the last one. The revisional authority also failed to record any positive finding that any irregularity has taken place in the auction, referring to the relevant official record. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the two judgments of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab Financial Commissioner. Revenue, Punjab,1991 1 RLR 334 and Jagnandan Singh v. Union of India & Others, 1975 PunLJ 128.