KHUSHIA RAM Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khushia Ram petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1291 of 1987 was the highest bidder in the public auction of two properties bearing No. 404-D and 40 7-D situated at Dadri in District Bhiwani conducted on 19th May, 1959. The properties were from the compensation pool and the sale was conducted by the Rehabilitation Department. The highest did at the auction was of Rs. 2025/- in respect or property. No. 404-D and Rs. 650/- in respect of property No. 407-D. In terms of the proviso to Sub-rule (8) of rule 90 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the auction-purchaser put in an indemnity bond in form Appendix XXI-A in lieu of earnest money equivalent to 10% of the bid amount.

(2.) Verified claim of the petitioner auction-purchaser on the basis whereof indemnity bond in form Appendix XXI-A was furnished was rejected ex-parte on 24th September, 1966 in terms of rule 65 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 presuming that more than 4 acres of agricultural land had been allotted to the claimant. On the petitioner representing that the order rejecting his claim passed on 24th September, 1966, was passed ex-parte on factually incorrect hypothesis and wrong presumption, the wrong done to the petitioner was righted on 19th May, 1973.

(3.) Meanwhile acting on the order of rejection dated 24th September, 1966, the Rehabilitation Authorities called upon the petitioner to deposit earnest money in cash and on his failure to do so, ordered the aforesaid two properties to be re-auctioned on 13th February, 1971. Therein respondents 5 and 6 purchased these properties as highest bidders. The petitioner knocked at the doors of Rehabilitation Authorities from lowest to the highest to set aside the subsequent sale dated 13th February, 1971 in favour or respondents 5 and 6 but did not succeed. The cry made by the petitioner obviously fell on deaf ears. In this writ, the petitioner has asked for quashing of the orders Annexures P.5, P.8, P.9 and P.14 as also of the re-auction sale of the properties in dispute held in favour of respondents 5 and 6 on 13th February, 1971.