RSA No.4254 of 2008 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH..
RSA No.4254 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.7.2009.
Rajinder Singh and another
....Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present:- Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate
for the appellants.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
****
The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment
and decree passed by learned Court below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs
seeking a decree for declaration that plaintiffs are owners in actual physical and
cultivating possession of the land measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas situated at village
Ramgarh Majra, Tehsil Jagadhri and challenging the cancellation of auction
dated 8.11.1996 vide notice dated 22.6.1998 was dismissed.
The plaintiffs claim themselves to be in possession of land
measuring 7 kanals 2 marlas. It is asserted that in auction held on 8.11.1996 the
plaintiffs were highest bidder in the sum of Rs. 80,000/-. The plaintiffs deposited
1/4th of the total bid auction i.e. Rs.20,000/- and thereafter the plaintiffs are
owners in possession of the suit land. It is also pointed out that prior to auction,
father of the plaintiffs was in possession of suit land for last more than 20 years.
The defendants contested the suit pointing out that no notice under
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been served. It was pointed out
that suit land was put to auction on 8.11.1996. The plaintiffs were highest bidder
but the same was subject to approval of competent authority. The settlement
Officer has not approved the auction vide order dated 17.3.1998. The auction
purchaser was informed about this order. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs are
not in possession of the suit land. It was further pointed out that the said land
RSA No.4254 of 2008 (O&M) 2
was again put to open auction on 29.7.1998. But in view of the interim order
passed by Civil Court, the auction was not completed.
Learned trial Court found that though the plaintiffs were the highest
bidder but since the bid has not been approved by the Settlement Officer,
therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any title on the basis of auction which
already stood cancelled. It was also found that suit is bad for want of notice
under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned First Appellate Court
in an appeal filed by the appellants confirmed the findings recorded by learned
trial Court holding that notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has not been served. The First Appellate Court also found that the suit land
was auctioned in favour of plaintiffs which was subject to confirmation from the
higher authorities but the same was not confirmed. The plaintiff appearing as
PW2 has admitted that the suit was subject to confirmation, therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot be treated to be owners of the suit land. Since the plaintiffs
have failed to prove to be owner, so they are not entitled to declaration sought
for.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has vehemently argued that the
suit has been dismissed only on the ground of non service of notice under
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that plaintiffs had been writing to
the defendants so as to seek permission to deposit balance sale consideration.
Since permission was not granted, therefore, the defendants cannot take benefit
of their own wrong and cancel the auction.
The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming title over the
suit property. It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to serve notice under Section
80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is only in the event of urgent interim relief of
injunction, the service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
can be dispensed with.
Be that as it may, the fact remain that the plaintiffs claims to be
owner on the basis of auction conducted in their favour. They had admitted that
the sale was subject to confirmation. Sale was not confirmed. Therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot claim to be owners on the basis of unconfirmed sale and that
RSA No.4254 of 2008 (O&M) 3
too on deposit of 1/4th of the sale consideration. The plaintiffs had continued in
possession of public land by virtue of interim order so as to perpetuate the
illegalities.
Consequently, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the
finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial
question of law in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
24.7.2009 JUDGE
Reema