BHAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 25.05.1993 (Annexure P/3) and 13.10.1993 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of present writ petition are to the effect that property in dispute i.e. evacuee land was put to restricted auction by respondent No. 3-Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal on 14.07.1981 in which respondent No. 4 emerged as the highest bidder. The auction was confirmed on 20.08.1981. Respondent No. 4 had made the full payment as per schedule and thereafter sale certificate was issued on 04.02.1987 in his favour which completed the transaction and respondent No. 4 became full-fledged owner of the land. After the issuance of sale certificate, the Government had no right over the land in dispute. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 had sold the property in dispute to the petitioners vide sale deeds dated 27.05.1987 (Annexures P/1 and P/2). Respondent No. 3 made a suo motu reference to respondent No. 2 for setting aside the sale in favour of respondent No. 4 on the ground that he had violated the instructions of the government by selling the land before the expiry of ten years. Respondent No. 2 without issuing any notice to the petitioners, accepted the reference vide order dated 25.05.1993 (Annexure P/3), set aside the auction dated 14.07.1981 and sale certificate dated 04.02.1987. When the petitioners came to know about the impugned order dated 25.05.1993 (Annexure P/3), the petitioners filed a petition with the averments that the land in dispute was in their possession and they had raised substantial residential construction and respondent No. 4 had left no interest in the land. The said petition was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.10.1993 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that as per the condition imposed upon respondent No. 4, he was not competent to alienate the land in question before the expiry often years from the date of confirmation of the auction. The petitioners are absolute owners of the property in dispute and impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(2.) In pursuance to notice, respondents put in appearance. Respondents No. 1 to 3 filed reply and pleaded that land in dispute was auctioned by the Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal. As a matter of policy, the State Government decided to sell the surplus evacuee agricultural land in restricted auction amongst Harijans to raise their standards of living. However in order to avoid malpractice, the Government imposed a restriction on them for not selling/alienating the land for ten years from the date of confirmation of auction so that persons belonging to affluent sections of the society may not exploit the auction purchasers. As per the condition imposed upon respondent No. 4, he was not competent to alienate the land in question before the expiry often years from the date of confirmation of the auction. Respondent No. 4 had fraudulently sold the disputed land to the petitioners. Since respondent No. 4 had sold the disputed land before expiry often years, respondent No. 2 on a reference from the Tehsildar (Sales), Karnal took action under Rule 11 of the State Rules and set aside the auction and sale certificate. Other averments in petition were denied and dismissal of the petition was prayed for.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 did not file any reply.