Civil Revision No. 634 of 2009 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 634 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 4.2.2009
Satpal ..... Petitioner
vs
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 13.5.2008
passed by the learned court below whereby application filed by the
petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction
has been dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that the respondents put to auction 5.12
acres of land in Canal Rest House Gohana on 2.7.2004 and the petitioner
along with other persons was successful bidder offering a sum of Rs.
23,60,000/- out of which Rs. 5,90,000/- were deposited at the time of
auction. Vide communication dated 26.7.2007, the aforesaid auction was
not approved. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner in the suit
filed.
The application for interim injunction filed alongwith the suit
was dismissed by both the courts below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
alongwith his co-bidder are in possession of the suit land after the auction of
the land by the respondents. They have paid 25% of the auction price. They
were ready and willing to pay the balance but the same was not accepted.
They have even installed tubewell on the land. There was no question of
cancellation of the auction proceedings more than three years after the same
was conducted. As the order of non-confirmation of sale has been impugned
in the suit, the petitioner should be permitted to remain in possession of the
property.
Civil Revision No. 634 of 2009 (2)
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find
any merit in the submissions made.
The auction conducted was subject to the approval of the higher
authorities and the same was not approved. It is further noticed in the
impugned order that the petitioner had entered into the possession of the
land unauthorisedly and was issued notice for his eviction. Further once the
government decided not to accept the sale conducted in the auction, the
petitioner including his co-bidder are not entitled to retain possession of
land. Two of the co-bidders of the petitioner have received back their 1/4th
share deposited by them and third Asha Ram has also requested for refund
of his share deposited at the time of auction.
In such circumstances, I do not find, prima facie, case is made
out in favour of the petitioner for grant of interim injunction.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
4.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge