BHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhajan Singh petitioner gave the highest auction bid on September 22, 1972 for Rs. 2,400/- in regard to 48 Kanals 2 Marlas of land situate in village Kachhwa, tehsil and district Karnal. Ajaib Singh respondent filed an objection petition dated October 3, 1972 for impugning the aforesaid sale as not having been properly conducted. The Settlement Commissioner by an order dated November 6, 1972 (Annexure B) set aside the auction sale on the ground that as only 3/4 persons participated at the time of auction which proved that no proper proclamation was made in the village for the sale of land in dispute. The officer concerned also noticed that the objector was prepared to pay Rs. 3,200/- as against the highest bid of Rs. 2,400/-. Against order (Annexure B) the auction purchaser has come to this Court in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. P.C. Mehta appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that order (Annexure B) is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as the sale could not be set aside on the conjectural finding given by the officer concerned. He has urged that the record of the Naib Tehsildar shows that there were 22 persons present at the time of auction whose signatures in token of their presence were obtained by the officer conducting the sale and the mere fact that only 4 persons participated in the auction bid was no ground in the eyes of law for setting aside the sale. He further urged that mere offer of a higher amount after the auction is also no ground in the eyes of law for setting aside the sale. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Harkishan Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1967 CurLJ 706, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chandgi Ram and another v. Moonga and others, 1971 AIR(P&H) 375.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order (Annexure B) dated November 6, 1972 setting aside the sale deserves to be quashed. In Harkishan Singh's case it was ruled that mere offer of higher amount is no ground for setting aside the auction sale. As regards Chandgi Ram's case it was held that unless there has been material irregularity or fraud in publication or the conduct of the sale and that this has resulted into substantial injury by reason of the said irregularity or fraud, no sale can be set aside. In the present case no such thing has been found by the authority below and the mere fact that only 4 persons gave the bid at the time of auction, was no ground in the eyes of law for setting aside the sale. It is not disputed that as many as 22 persons were present at the time of auction out of whom only 4 participated. From this no inference can be drawn that there was any defect in publishing or conducting the sale.