Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Haryana on 13 October, 2011
     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


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.712 seconds.