YAQUB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , C&S (Reh.) This is a petition under Rule 18 of the Rules for the disposal of surplus rural property against the order dated 30.7.1997 passed by the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the land in dispute was put to auction initially on 10.8.1995 with the highest bid of Rs. 25,000/- being that of Sh. Yaqub, the petitioner. But due to defective proclamation, it was re- auctioned on 8.2.1996 and Sh. Yaqub, petitioner again turned out to be the highest bidder for Rs. 40,000/-. This auction was confirmed by the A.S.O. (Sales) on 9.2.1996 and sale certificate was also issued to him on 29.7.1996. The respondent No. 6, however, filed a revision petition before the Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana challenging the above auction on various grounds of mal-practices and irregularities. The Ld. Joint Secretary-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana vide orders dated 30.7.1997 accepted the revision petition to the extent that the above auction was set aside, and re-auction of the land was ordered. It is against the above order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the both sides in detail and also gone through the grounds of petition as well as the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the auction was not free from material irregularities. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner failed during arguments to rebut the grounds taken by the Settlement Commissioner for setting aside this auction. It is clear that the proclamation was defective and was shown to have been made on the papers only. The use of different inks on the proclamation report creates serious doubts about its genuineness. It has also been pointed out by the Ld. Settlement Commissioner that three auctions had taken place on that day and the petitioner and others who participated in the auction have turned out to be the highest bidders in these auctions, meaning thereby that they divided the spoils among themselves. It smacks of connivance and collusion and a fraud has been played with the public property. It has also been pointed out that the respondent No. 6 Shri Umraoli has been in possession of this land and he was interested party in the auction. He would have definitely participated, had he been given a notice. He has offered Rs. 70,000/- for this land as against Rs. 40,000/- offered by the petitioner. It also means an injury has been caused to the respondent No. 6.