IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16253 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.10.2011
Bhupinder Singh ....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government of Haryana,
Rehabilitation Department, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and
others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. K. C. Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana, for respondents
1 to 4.
None for respondent No.5.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. CM No.13493 of 2011
Application for restoration of the writ petition at its
original number is allowed.
Civil Writ Petition No.16253 of 1989
2. The writ petition challenges the decision of the Joint
Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, arrayed as
respondent No.4, setting aside the auction sale held as per the Rules
for Sale of Surplus Rural Property. The petitioner was admittedly
Civil Writ Petition No.16253 of 1989 (O&M) -2-
declared the highest bidder for three items of properties described in
khasra Nos.54//17/2 which was described however in the auction
notice as 54//17/25, 24 and 17/4 in Village Uchat, Tehsil and
District Mohindergarh. After the auction was held, the 5th respondent
herein, made a complaint for setting aside the sale contending, inter
alia, that his father had been in possession of the properties for more
than 50 years and he was prepared to offer higher price. His
contention was the property itself was mis-described in one of the
khasra numbers, namely, 54//17/2 was wrongly described as
54//17/25. The Additional Officer before whom the objection was
taken rejected the complaint but in a revision filed by the 5th
respondent to the 4th respondent. The authority set it aside on the
only ground that there was mis-description of property.
3. The learned counsel points out that it was not as if there
was any particular prejudice shown by the mis-description and even
in the warrant of delivery, the property was correctly shown by the
khasra number. The complaint itself was not in accordance with the
relevant rules, for, it required the complainant to make through Rule
9(b) to deposit a sum equivalent to the highest bid plus 20% of the
earnest money along with an undertaking to buy the property at his
enhanced value if as a result of such re-auction the property did not
fetch a higher price than the amount deposited.
4. I find that a mis-description could surely figure as a
ground for setting aside a sale, if there had been any allegation of a
Civil Writ Petition No.16253 of 1989 (O&M) -3-
prejudice such as when it is pointed out that on account of such
mis-description, people were misled into thinking that yet another
inferior property was offered for sale; or there was a deliberate
mistake to mislead resulting in loss to the exchequer; or it was done
in connivance with public authority by the successful bidder in
securing a wrong description. No such allegations were made nor
was there any such finding entered. It must be noticed that the sale
was being set aside not in exercise of any suo motu powers of the
authority assuming that such power existed that the sale was vitiated
by mis-description of property. On the other hand, sale was sought
to set aside on the basis of a complaint. If such a complaint could
not have been entertained as per the relevant rules, the purport of
which I have already extracted above, viz., without complying with
the requirement of the Rules, the 5th respondent could not have
sought for the sale being set aside. The order of the 4th respondent
was clearly erroneous, for, he was allowing for a complaint to be
taken on board who did not fulfill the formalities necessary for
consideration of request for being entrained and adjudicated upon.
5. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is
allowed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
13.10.2011
sanjeev
