JAGDISH PRASHAD AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A piece of land measuring 1375 square yards belonging to the State and situated within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri was to be sold by auction which was conducted by respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar, Charkhi Dadri) on 11th July, 1966 at 11 a.m. According to the petitioner, Jagdish Parshad, the auction in fact did not take place and only auction proceedings were manipulated and it was shown that Murari Lal was the highest bidder at Rs. 4,200/-. On learning about this petitioner contacted Respondent No. 4 and informed him that no auction had in fact taken place and that he should be recorded as the highest bidder at Rs. 10,000/-. As respondent No. 4 did not accept this position, the petitioner gave an offer in writing to him at that very time and copy of this offer was sent to respondent No. 2 and other authorities of the State Government. On getting this representation, respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh) recorded the statement of the petitioner and then passed the following order :-

(2.) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents who contested the petition through the affidavit of Shri R.L. Sudhir, Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh. Subsequently an affidavit of Shri G.L. Nagpal, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, has been filed in which it has been stated that the Government undertakes to re-auction the plot in dispute. As the State Government has now decided to re-auction the plot it is directed that the auction be held in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26th July, 1966. The auction be held as early as possible and in any case within four months, as a lot of time has already been taken in settling this matter.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case the bid goes higher than Rs. 10,000 and he is not able to purchase the property the amount of Rs. 6,000 deposited by him should be refunded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, as the delay caused by the respondents in conducting the auction was responsible for raising the price of the land. It is common knowledge that during the last eight years the price of land has gone up considerably. Had the auction been held within a short time of the order of the Deputy Commissioner or even after the passing of the order of this Court by P.C. Jain, J., dated 2nd March, 1970, the price of the plot would have been much less than what it would fetch now. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has suffered a loss on account of the undue delay caused by the respondents in conducting the auction. Keeping this in view it is directed that in case the auction bid goes above Rs. 10,000 and the petitioner does not purchase the plot the amount of Rs. 6,000 may be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The interest would be paid from the date of the deposit. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed with costs.