A
B
JOG RAM
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS .
.JULY 25, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Auction sale-Resale after confi11natio11 of sale-Validity of-Evacuee
prope1ty-:Distribution to people-Auction sale by Govemment-Land sold to
respo11dent-5 in auctio11-Sale co11fimzed in his favow-Subseque11tly appel-
C /ant filed application for al/otme11t of land-La11d sold to appellant also a11d
conveyed to him by registered sale deed-Order cancelling land sold to appel-
lant on the ground that it was already sold to 5th respondent and the same
cannot be resold to the appellant-Wiit challenging cancellation of saiL-Dis-
missal by High Cowt-Appeal-Held confi1111atio11 of sale confe1red ce1tai11
D
E
F
G
rights 011 the 5th rcspondem--{Jn/ess the sale was duly set aside, the sale held
and concluded in favour of respondent-5 could not be put to resale and sole
to the appellant-Cancellation of sale was 11ot vitiated by any e1Tor of
law-Held no interference was wan·anted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1474 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.79 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4953 of 1974.
Rajiv Nanda, T. Sridharan and Tufail A. Khan for the Appellants.
S.M. Ashri for the Respondents.
Prem Malhotra for State.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The appellant appears to have come into possession of 30 bighas, 13
biswas of land. Subsequently, the evacuee property vested in the Govern-
ment of India was taken over by the State Government for distribution to
the people according to the procedure prescribed by the Government of
Punjab. It would appear that in 1962, applications were invited for allot-
H ment of the land as per that procedure and the appellant had not applied
36
JOG RAM v. S1ATE
37
for allotment. In 1967, the land came to be sold to the people at an A
auction. Respondent No. 5 - Fateh Singh - appears to have become the
highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 3,800 and the sale was duly confirmed.
Subsequently, time was extended to the persons to make applications and
the last date was February 22, 1968. Thereunder, the appellant came to
make an application dated January 5, 1968 for confirmation of sale of land
in his favour by a sale. The competent officer sold the land to the appellant
and conveyed it by registered sale deed dated June 26, 1968. That sale
came to be cancelled by order dated February 5, 1974 passed by the second
respondent on the ground that the land was already sold to the 5th
respondent on February 27, 1967 and hence the same could not be resold
to the appellant under the aforesaid sale deed. Therefore, it is not valid
order. Calling that cancellation in question, the appellant came to file the
writ petition in the High Court. Jn Writ Petition No. 4953 the Division
Bench by order dated October 4, 1979 dismissed the petition. Thus, this
appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that thought the
respondent was the highest bidder, he had not deposited the full considera-
tion of the bid amount; there was no sale certificate issued to him and
thereby the 5th respondent could not become the owner of the property to
the extent of 13 bighas 13 biswas which was sold in the auction to him. The
Division Bench was not right in holding that the appellant was not entitled
to. the sale on the ground that it was already put to auction in favour of the
5th respondent. When we pointedly asked the learned counsel for the
appellant for the order of confirmation of sale of land dated February 27,
1967, in fairness, the learned counsel has stated that the said order was not
made part of the record. The confirmation of the sale conferred certain
rights on the 5th respondent. Unless the sale was duly set aside, the sale
property held and concluded could not be put to resale and sold to the
appellant on June 26, 1968. As a consequence the cancellation of the sale
by order dated February 5, 1974 cannot be said to be vitiated by any error
of law warranting interference.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal dismissed.
B
c
D
E
F
G
Lex