SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order issued by the Joint Secretary -cum -Settlement Commissioner on 20.11.1991 directing the sale of the property, while setting aside the sale purported to have been made in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar. Independently of this order, there had been yet another order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, issued on 7.1.1991 giving similar direction for sale of this property in an open auction, after getting the reserved price re -assessed from the competent authority. Simultaneously, two orders have been passed by the two authorities coming to a same result under the following circumstances.

(2.) IN an auction held on 19.2.1987 under the Sales of Surplus Rural Evacuee Properties Rules, the land in dispute was sold in favour of one Kehar Singh. The present petitioner Shanti Devi and another person Lalla Ram raised objection to the sale, one claiming that the property had been sold for a grossly low price and he was prepared to pay a larger price and the other person contending that she had been already in possession of the property and the property could not have been directed to be sold without considering her rights under some of the press notes released by the government allowing for a priority to a person in possession. Their objections were disallowed and the sale certificate had been issued in favour of Kehar Singh. This was challenged again before the Chief Settlement Commissioner by Lalla Ram only and Shanti Devi did not make any further objection. It is a matter of record that Shanti Devi herself had filed a suit against the State against the sale by auction. Her suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by her before the District court was also dismissed. In the proceedings before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the sale made in favour of Kehar Singh was set aside and there had been a direction that the property shall be re -auctioned. He found, inter -alia, that the property was not rural property and the sale by the Tehsildar itself was incompetent. There had been other deficiencies noted by him in the order. This order had been subject of challenge before this court in CWP No. 5897 of 1988. Before the High Court, there had been again a similar dispute of whether the property was urban or semi -urban land which could have been sold by the Tehsildar or it was only a rural property. To resolve the matter, the High Court set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and directed fresh consideration taking into account certificate relating to the nature of the property of whether it was urban or rural property and to resolve the dispute. Significantly, at the time when the High Court passed the order, the present petitioner was not made party because she had not challenged the order originally passed dismissing her objection and the Chief Settlement Commissioner was only deciding the appeal filed by Lalla Ram.

(3.) WE have, therefore, two orders, one, passed by the Joint Secretary -cum -Settlement Commissioner and the another passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is similar in one aspect that is squarely a point raised and for which remand had been made by the High Court. The remand was to identify the location of the property and whether the Tehsildar could have exercised its power to sell considering the property as rural property. I have already made reference to the fact that there were conflicting claims about the character of the property, even before the High Court in the earlier round. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was confronted with the same dilemma of varying versions regarding character of the property. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, made reference to the fact that the land in question was about 350 yards away from the Ware Housing Godowns and these godowns were situated in the new grain market of Thanesar. He also observed that the land at present is being put to agricultural use and otherwise chahi and fertile but it also has commercial potentiality. Though the land was not directly located on the road, it had nonetheless developed and had commercial potential. He identified other distinctive features such as proximity to the Kurukshetra University, location of other land and buildings for commercial use and his own personal assessment of the high value of the property. Noticing that it could not, therefore, satisfy the test of merely disposal as a rural or sub -urban land, he directed a fresh auction to take place. Taking the issue from the point of objection taken by the petitioner through press note or considering the problem through the order of remand made by the High Court already, when the original purchaser Kehar Singh had challenged the order of cancellation, the government has thought it fit to realize the potential of the land and for optimal benefit by sale by public auction. It serves interest of public best for I cannot see any special privilege for the petitioner to stall such action. If she was staking her claim under the press note, that had been specifically adverted to in the order passed by the Joint Secretary -cum -Settlement Commissioner. The same issue has also been considered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, while deciding of what was directed to be done by this court in the earlier writ petition.