JARNAIL SINGH Vs. JOINT SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , C&S. This is a petition under Rule 18 of the State Rules of the disposal of surplus rural evacuee properties 1962 against the order dated 16.12.1996 passed by the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the land in dispute was put to open auction on 16.5.1995 by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales) Hisar. One Sh. Gurmit Singh, Respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder for Rs. 79,000/-. The present petitioner Sh. Jarnail Singh filed objections against the auction before the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala. The objection was that the auction was not conducted properly. No notice was given to him and there was collusion of the officials with the respondent No. 4. The Settlement Officer (Sales) found the objections baseless. It was found by him that the objector Sh. Jarnail Singh was also present during auction and he gave a bid for Rs. 41,700/- and did not compete further. The objections were rejected and the auction was confirmed by the Settlement Officer vide his orders dated 2.2.1996 by passing a self speaking order. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana who after thorough enquiry and after hearing the petitioner found the version of the petitioner as baseless and dismissed the revision petition vide his orders dated 16.12.1996. It is against the above order that the present petition has been filed in this court.

(3.) THE case came up for hearing before me today. The Ld. counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 3 is present. But none from the petitioner's side has come. This case was fixed earlier on 16.3.1999. The petitioner's counsel was not present on 16.3.1999 also. But his Clerk had come and made a request that the counsel is busy in the High Court and requested for an adjournment which was granted. The case was fixed for today. But again the Ld. counsel for the petitioner Sh. Sanjiv Gupta is not present, nor there is any information. After calling the case 3-4 times, it was taken up for a decision on merit on the basis of the grounds of petition. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner however appeared at 4.45 p.m. and the court work had come to a close. But by that time I had heard the respondent's counsel and announced the judgment.