RAM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Pandit J. who dismissed the writ petition of Ram Chander appellant on 9th of August, 1966.

(2.) THE facts, on which there is no dispute, are these. In villages Ram Nagar of Thanesar tehsil, certain evacuee lands were put to auction. We are concerned in this appeal only with two lots; one measuring 1 acre 6 kanals and 6 marlas was sold as Lot No. 2 for Rs. 1075/- in open auction to Bhushan Chand and his brother Rulia Ram, respondents 4 and 5 respectively, on 14th May, 1963. On the same day another parcel numbered as Lots No 4 and No. 5 measuring 10 acres 5 Kanals and 17 marlas was sold to the same respondents for a sum of Rupees 2750/ -. Objections were filed by various persons including the appellant. It seems that the objections were required to deposit some amount before the confirmation of sales. The Sales, however, were confirmed on 6th of July, 1963. The objectors, including the appellant, took the matter before the Settlement Officer (Sales) who passed an elaborate and detailed order in their favour n 29th of July, 1963. This order was, however, set aside subsequently by the Settlement Commissioner, Punjab on 11th of October, 1963, on the ground that the respondents who had been adversely affected by it had not been heard,. There after, two of the objectors, including the appellant, filed separate revision petitions before the Settlement Commissioner, both directed against the orders of confirmations of sales made on 6th of July, 1963, The appellant before this functionary made a statement on 4th of November, 1963, that he was prepared to make a bid of Rs. 6000/- for land covered by lots 4 and 5 which had been sold to respondents 4 and 5 for a sum of Rupees 2750/with regard to the other parcel of land covered by lot No. 2 , he made an offer of Rs. 2,500/against the sum of Rs. 1075/- for which it had been sold in favour of respondents 4 and 5 , Earlier on 29th of July, 1963, the Settlement Officer (Sales) had also set aside the sales at the instance f the appellant who had made similar offers before him that day, though for lesser amounts, and in pursuance thereof a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,200/- had actually been deposited. The Settlement Commissioner, in his order of 4th November, 1963 (Annexure C) while holding that the higher bids of the appellant in themselves did not constitute a ground for setting aside the sales, allowed his petition for reversion for there as on that material irregularity had been committed inasmuch as the notice of sale which was to be issued 15 days before the date of the sale, did not include the lands which were being put to auction and whose sale was confirmed by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 6th of July, 1963. In these words of the Settlement Commissioner: "it is therefore, clear that at the time of publication, certain Khasra numbers were published to be auctioned which in fact did not exist. . . I feel that this is a material irregularity which coupled with a substantial higher initial bid of Shri Ram Chander objector, should be sufficient to hold that the sale of two lots made in; favour of the respondents is liable to beset aside. " In the result, it was directed that the land should be put to re-auction and the first bids of Lot No, 2 and lots 4 and 5 were to be of Ram Chander for Rupees 2,500 /- and Rs. 6,000/- respectively. Should the petitioner fail to make these bids the sum of Rs. 5,200/- which had been deposited by him "shall stand forfeited".

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order passed on 4th November, 1963, by the Settlement Commissioner (Annexure C), respondents 4 and 5 moved this Court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. An assertion was made in this petition that the State Government had made certain rules for the sale of lands and these had been fully compiled with. It was mentioned in sub-paragraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 11 that the Settlement Commissioner under these rules had the power to rectify errors or mistakes and also to withhold the confirmation of sale if any material irregularity had been committed in its publication or conduct. It may be mentioned in passing that the State Government in its written reply acknowledged the existence of such rules by saying that the contents of paragraph 11 as also of sub-paragraphs were admitted. In the writ petition which kept pending in this Court for some time, Mr. D. S. Nehra, counsel for the respondent State made a statement on 29th of July, 1965, before Gurdev Singh, J. that "on reconsideration of the matter the Government have decided not to interfere in the sale of the land already made in favour of the petitioners Bhushan Chand and Rulia Ram. In view of these instructions which are reproduced in Annexure 'd' a letter from the Deputy Secretary to Punjab Government, to Mr. D. S. Nehra of 28th July 1965, Gurudev Singh J. dismissed the petition as infructuous on 29th July, 1965. Though the appellant Ram Chander was a party in this writ petition as a respondent, he was not present at the time when the statement was made by Mr. Nehra and the order of dismissal passed by Gurudev Singh J.