NAND LAL Vs. JOINT SECRETARY, REHABILITATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , C&S (Reh.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under rule 18 of the State Rules for disposal of evacuee lands against the order dated 30.1.1997 passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-Settlment Commissioner, Haryana.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the land in dispute measuring 16 Kanals, 10 Marlas situated in Village Dhulkot Tehsil Siwani District Hisar (Now District Bhiwani) was put to restrict auction on 7.2.1995. The petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder for Rs. 52,500/-. The objections filed by one Shri Vijay Singh were heard and dismissed and the auction was confirmed by the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala. The possession of the land was also delivered to the petitioner on 3.11.1995. Thereafter Shri Rohtash and Shri Vijay Singh filed objections before the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana against the auction. The Ld. Settlement Commissioner after hearing the parties found that the auction was not of a competitive nature and the objectors were prepared to pay Rs. 60,000/-. The price of auction was less than the market price. The auction was set aside by Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation vide his orders dated 30.1.1997. The present petition has been filed against the above orders.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by both sides in detail and also gone through the relevant facts of the case. It is revealed that the auction has been set aside by the Ld. Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation mainly on the ground that the auction was not of a competitive nature in the sense that the highest bidder (bid ?) was less than the market price of the land. The objectors were ready to pay Rs. 60,000/- for the land. He also observed that there were only 6 bidders out of which Shri Sham Lal and the petitioner are the real brothers. The participation in the auction was very limited. Shri Sham Lal and Shri Kishan Kumar the two participants are also Revenue Patwaris and with their presence that auction was vitiated. I find that the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation has just pointed out certain inadequacies. His main ground was inadequacy of the price. However such inadequacies cannot be said to be fatal to the auction. The auction was conducted in the village itself and after due notice and proclamation. Since it was a restricted auction, the market price was not the consideration. The very purpose of the restricted auction is to enable the weaker sections of the society to purchase the land at the affordable price. The market price could be the relevant consideration in the open auction and not in the restricted auction. I do not find any fraud or material irregularity in the conduct of the auction and in the absence of that the auction cannot be set aside as per the established legal position. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable and is set aside. Appeal accepted. This is however subject to the decision in the case of Shadi Lal v. The State which was relates to this very land and which I have remanded to the Ld. Settlement Commissioner, Haryana vide orders dated 23.3.99 in case No. 33(4)/98. Announced.