MAHMOOD HASAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition 8854 of 1989. Facts giving rise to the appeal may first be noticed.

(2.) Land measuring 3 kanals and 13 marlas situated in village Malaba Tehsil Nuh District Gurgaon was put to auction on June 4, 1987 in accordance with Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short 'the Rules'). The appellant Shri Mahmood Hasan was the highest bidder for Rs. 3500/-. The bid was subject to approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose. Before the bid could be approved, one Shri Kamal Deen filed his objections against the auction alleging some irregularities in the conduct thereof. The matter regarding confirmation of the bid along with objections was considered by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, who by his order dated August 24, 1988 dismissed the objections on the ground that they were frivolous as the objector could not point out any irregularity in the conduct or proclamation of the auction. However, the highest bid of the appellant was not accepted and the auction was not confirmed on the ground that the bid was less than the reserve price. The land was ordered to be re-auctioned after giving wide publicity. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the appellant filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana who by his order dated May 24, 1989 dismissed the same holding that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not bound to confirm the auction of the land which fetched a price below the reserve price. Finding no illegality in the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the revision petition was dismissed. The appellant challenged both these orders in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the same having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) The only point canvassed before us by counsel for the appellant is that after the auction was over the department issued revised instructions on 11.7.1988 on the basis of which the reserve price of the land in question was enhanced to Rs. 4864 and this, according to the counsel, could be done. The argument is that the revised instructions could not apply to an auction which had already taken place and, therefore, the orders impugned before the learned Judge deserve to be quashed. There is no merit in this contention.