KUNDAL LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Settlement Commissioner. Haryana, dated September 2, 1985, copy Annexure 'P.2' whereby the Revision Petition filed before him by the petitioner Kundan Lal was dismissed.

(2.) According to the averments in the petition, land measuring 21 Kanals 4 Marlas was purchased by the petitioner in restricted auction held on May 5, 1977, for a sum of Rs. 5000/-. He being the highest bidder, deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 500/- on May 5, 1977. Somehow or the other, the aforesaid auction was not confirmed and land was ordered to be re-auctioned. Thus the land was put to restricted auction on November 23, 1977 and the same was again purchased by the petitioner being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. Thereafter he deposited the earnest money on the same date. According to the petitioner, the possession of the land sold was delivered to him by the Rehabilitation Authorities in November, 1977,and he is still in possession of the land in dispute. According to the petitioner, no objections with regard to the aforesaid sale held on November 23, 1977 were filed by anybody and the auction was conducted by observing all the formalities as provided under Rule 5 of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties. In para5 it has been averred that the petitioner was under the impression that the auction in his favour was intact as he received no intimation whatsoever from the department. Moreover, no notice was received by him to deposit the balance amount. According to him, he visited the office of the Tehsildar Sales, Ambala, to ascertain the position as to whether the sale in his favour had been confirmed or not, but every time he was told that he will be intimated as and when the same is done. To the surprise of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 Tejinder Singh visited the village in May, 1985 and told him that the land in dispute had been allotted to his father Darshan Singh and symbolic possession had also been delivered to them vide Report Rozenamcha No. 289 of February 6, 1985. On this, the petitioner immediately enquired from the Tehsildar Sales, respondent no. 4 as to what had happened with regard to the sale in his favour conduced on November 23, 1977. Thereupon the Tehsildar intimated the petitioner that the aforesaid land was required for drilling experiments by the Senior Hydrologist, Central Ground Water board and, thus, vide order dated January 4, 1978, it was decided by respondent No. 3, the Deputy Secretary to government of Haryana (Rehabilitation Department) that the earnest amount deposited by him should be refunded to him. It was also ordered that it may be kept in view that whenever the land is again put to auction after the drilling operations are over, the petitioner should be informed so that he can take part in the auction. According to the petitioner, neither the earnest money deposited by him was ever refunded by the Rehabilitation Department, nor he was ever informed by the Rehabilitation Authorities with regard to the aforesaid order passed on January 4, 1978, copy Annexure 'P-1'. Moreover, no drilling operation whatsoever took place on the land in dispute and, therefore, the petitioner continued in physical possession of the land in dispute. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before respondent No. 2, the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, stating therein tat the land allotted in favour of respondent No. 5 may be cancelled and the auction held on November 23, 1977 in favour of the petitioner be confirmed and he be intimated as to how much balance amount was due towards him. The said Revision Petition was dismissed by respondent No. 2 vide order dated September 2, 1985, copy Annexure 'P-2'. According to the petitioner, the said order was illegal, ultra vires and unjust and was liable to be set aside inter alia on the ground that it has been wrongly held by the Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner has no right to challenge the auction till its confirmation. No intimation whatsoever of the order dated January 4, 1978, copy Annexure 'P-1', was ever sent to him as required under the rules. The land could not be allotted to respondent No. 5 even in view of the order, Annexure 'P-1', and could only be re-auctioned. It was not done and, therefore, the order, Annexure 'P-2' and the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 were liable to be set aside.

(3.) In the return filed on behalf of respondents No.s 1 to 4 the stand taken was that the land was re-auctioned on November 23, 1977 for Rs. 6,000/- in favour of the petitioner subject to approval by the competent authority and its possession was not delivered to him. The petitioner did deposit the earnest money on November 24, 1977, but it had not been confirmed by the competent authority and it is a settled law that the bidder has no title on the land till confirmation. According to the return, the possession of the petitioner, if any, over the land is unauthorised and he is liable to surrender the same forthwith and to pay damages therefor to the government. In para 6 of the return, it has been stated that the petitioner was asked vide letter dated January 24, 1978 to apply for refund of the amount deposited by him but he has not done so far for the reasons best known to him. However, since ultimately the land was taken by the department concerned for drilling purposes and research only and thereafter it was available for disposal and unsatisfied claimants has prior right for the allotment of the land. It was rightly allotted to respondent No. 5 instead of putting it to auction again. However, since the land was not available for auction after its allotment, the question of informing the petitioner regarding the date of its next auction did not arise. It has also been stated in reply to paras 7 and 8 that the bidder has no right in the land till its confirmation; that the competent authority is not bound to confirm the auction; and that the land was available for allotment to allotee who had prior right to get the land allotted if the auction thereof had not been confirmed.