HARKISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This dispute in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relates to evacuee property situate in Totamazia, district Hoshiarpur, which was originally described as house No. 4 but in the course of time had got reduced to a taur measuring 8 marlas. This taur, the reserve price of which was fixed by the Rehabilitation authorities at rs. 96/- was put up for auction on 13th MAy, 1964. The auction was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar (Sale)-cum-Managing Officer, when the property was knocked down in favour of the petitioner Harkishan Singh, being the highest bidder for Rs. 160/-. The very next day the petitioner deposited the entire sale price.

(2.) Twelve days later, on 25th May, 1964, Ved Parkash a local resident, made an application to the Naib Tehsildar stating that he was prepared to offer Rs. 320/- for this taur and the same be sold o him cancelling the earlier sale in favour of the petitioner Harkishan Singh. In this application there was no allegation that there was any defect, fraud or irregularity in publication or conduct of the sale. Ved Parkash wanted the cancellation of the previous sale solely on the plea that because of his absence from the station he could not attend the auction or bid for the property. The Tehsildar (Sales) thereupon held an enquiry, and after hearing Ved Parkash and the present petitioner found that there being no fraud or irregularity in publication of the sale, there was no justification for cancelling the sale made in favour of Harkishan Singh. In dismissing the application of Ved Parkash, he further observed that his objections to the sale could not be entertained being barred by time. Against the order of the Tehsildar (annexure A), dated 2nd July, 1964, Ved Parkash preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Sales). Before this Appellate Authority Ved Parkash made a substantial improvement in his case contending that because of lack of proper publicity of the auction he was prevented from bidding for the taur in dispute, which was adjacent to his house. At the same time, he increased his original offer of Rs. 320/- to Rs. 1,000/- for the taur in dispute. The Settlement Officer (Sales) appears to have been greatly impressed by this offer, and accepting the appeal of Ved Parkash set aside the sale. The material part of his order annexure B, dated 30th November, 1964, is in these words :-

(3.) Against this order Harkishan Singh then went up in revision, but without success. The Chief Settlement Commissioner a firmed the order of the Settlement Officer, observing as under :-