PRABHU DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition etition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 29-4-1983 passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settle-ment Commissioner, Haryana respondent 2. A further prayer for directing the respondents to refrain from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute by way of re-auctioning the same has also been made.

(2.) Brief facts bf the case necessary for disposal of the Instant petition are that the petitioner purchased 32 kanals of agricultural land situated in Village Shahjahanpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Gurgaon in an open restricted auction for Harizans held on 3-12-1971 being the highest bidder for Rs. 2.500/-. The land is claimed to be an evacuee property which belonged to compensation pool and vested in the State Government under the Package Deal of 1961. It is further claimed that the land is of inferior quality as the entry is Gair Mumkin Salabh and is situated at a distance of 2-'/4 Kilometres from the village in the catchment area of river Yamuna which remains under water. The petitioner deposited Rs. 625/- as earnest money and on 3-12-1971 the bid of the petitioner was accepted. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the balance amount. On 18-12-1971 Tehsildar Sales, Gurgaon issued a sale certificate as contemplated by Rule 90(15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 {for brevity, the Rules') which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.

(3.) However, on a suo motu reference, proceedings for cancellation of the sale were Initiated by the Deputy Secretary, Rehabilitation exercising the powers of the Settlement Commissioner. On 8-11-1974, an order cancelling the sale was passed which was challenged before this Court In Civil Writ Petition No. 50 of 1975 and the same was quashed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given. The respondents were granted liberty to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After affording opportunity of hearing, respondent 2 again passed an order on 29-4-1983 cancelling the sale. The principal reason which persuaded respondent 2 to pass the impugned order is that in the year 1967 when this land was auctioned, it fetched Rs. 8.000/- and after a lapse of four years, it could not have fetched Rs. 2.500/-. Respondent 2 also noticed and rejected the contentions of the petitioner showing that similar land had fetched similar price and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the land sold to the petitioner was purchased at a diminutive price. The view of respondent 2 is reflected in paragraph 3 of the imugned order dated 29-4-1983 which reads as under :