STATE Vs. RANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , S & C (Reh.) This is a suo moto reference filed by the State for cancellation of auction of the land measuring 7 kanal 8 marla comprised in khasra Nos. 10/17/1/2, 24/2, 25/1/2, 15/1/2, 7/1 situated at Dhulkot, Ambala City. This land was put to open auction on 10.10.95. Shri Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Suhel Singh was the highest bidder for Rs. 1,15,000/-. This auction was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 13.12.95. The auction purchaser deposited the entire price and the sale certificate was also issued on 22.1.1996. The petitioner has sought the cancellation of the above auction on the ground that the land is situated within the Municipal limits. The valuation of the land should have been made in the square yards and not in the acres. The price was fixed by the S.O. (Sales), Ambala as Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre, which becomes to about Rs. 25/- per Sq. yard, whereas the price of the land in the area is about Rs. 1000/- per Sq. yard. That the purchaser was in cultivating possession over the land earlier also and no occupation charges were recovered from him.

(2.) THERE was connivance of the officials with the auction purchaser. No proper proclamation was made. The Tehsildar (Sales) conducted the auction in his office which is about 9 K.Ms. away from the land. That no registration fee was paid by the auction purchaser because the Tehsildar (Sales) had issued a sale certificate treating the property as the property received in financial arrangement.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and also gone through the facts of the case. A perusal of the reference reveals that there are no valid grounds sufficient to quash the auction which has already been confirmed and also certificate issued. The reserve price of the land was fixed by the S.O. (Sales) and accordingly, auction was held. No objection regarding any irregularity or connivance or fraud was received from any person. The points raised by the petitioner in the reference cannot affect the auction. At the most the concerned officials can be held responsible for the administrative lapses. But auction cannot be set aside on such grounds. The settled legal position in this regard is that no auction an be set aside on the ground of inadequate price. Such auction can only be set aside, if any fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of auction is established and also that the auction has caused injury to some person. In the instant case there are no such circumstances. Apart from the above, it is also revealed that the Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.4.97 has already declared the respondent as owner in possession of the part of the land in dispute.