DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present Letter Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 31.10.2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed against an order setting aside the auction of the land situated in village Ganoli conducted on 06.01.1989.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge has maintained the order of setting aside the auction for the reason that in the proclamation of sale Annexure A -3, there is no time or place of auction specified. Therefore, it cannot be said to be open public auction giving notice to the public to participate in the auction on the given time and place. It is thus found that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner. Therefore, the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and that of the Settlement Commissioner cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality.

(3.) WE do not find any merit in any of the arguments. Though before the learned Single Judge, the applicant has referred to Rule 9 of the Disposal of Evacuee Property Rules, 1963 to argue that the auction could be disputed only on deposit of the highest bid amount plus 20% as earnest money but in fact, the Rules produced by the appellant shows that they are not Rules but the instructions which are titled as Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties. It is well settled that all public properties have to be sold by public auction by giving wide publicity to the intending purchasers to participate in the auction. Unless the place and time is specified, it cannot be said that the parameters of notice to open public auction stands satisfied. Since neither the time nor the place was disclosed in the proclamation, which is apparent from the reading of public notice Annexure A -1, we find that the auction in which the applicant was said to be highest purchaser does not meet the basic parameters of open public auction.