Mahmood Hasan vs State of Haryana

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing Civil Writ Petition 8854 of 1989. Facts giving rise to the appeal may first be noticed.

Land measuring 3 kanals and 13 marlas situated in village Malaba Tehsil Nuh District Gurgaon was put to auction on June 4, 1987 in accordance with Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (for short ''the Rules''). The appellant Shri Mahmood Hasan was the highest bidder for Rs. 3500/. The bid was subject to approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose. Before the bid could be approved, one Shri Kamal Deen filed his objections against the auction alleging some irregularities in the conduct thereof. The matter regarding confirmation of the bid along with objections was considered by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, who by his order dated August 24, 1988 dismissed the objections on the ground that they were frivolous as the objector could not point out any irregularity in the conduct or proclamation of the auction. However, the highest bid of the appellant was not accepted and the auction was not confirmed on the ground that the bid was less than the reserve price. The land was ordered to be reauctioned after giving wide publicity. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the appellant filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana who by his order dated May 24, 1989 dismissed the same holding that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner was not bound to confirm the auction of the land which fetched a price below the reserve price. Finding no illegality in the order of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, the revision petition was dismissed. The appellant challenged both these orders in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the same having been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

The only point canvassed before us by counsel for the appellant is that after the auction was over the department issued revised instructions on 11.7.1988 on the basis of which the reserve price of the land in question was enhanced to Rs. 4864 and this, according to the counsel, could be done. The argument is that the revised instructions could not apply to an auction which had already taken place and, therefore, the orders impugned before the learned Judge deserve to be quashed. There is no merit in this contention.

It could not be disputed that the highest bid of the appellant was not approved. The mere fact that he was the highest bidder at the auction does not amount to a sale and transfer of property to him. The fact that the bid had to be approved by the Settlement Commissioner shows that till such approval the auctionpurchaser had not right at all and in the matter of approval of the bid, the Settlement Commissioner was not bound to give such approval. Even approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner does not amount to a transfer of property because the auction purchaser has yet to pay the balance of the purchase money and the Rules provide that if he fails to do that he shall not have any claim to the land. The net result is that on the approval of the bid by the Settlement Commissioner only a binding contract for the sale of the property to the auctionpurchaser comes into existence. In the case before us even the bid had not been approved by the Settlement Commissioner and therefore, the appellant had no right whatsoever. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner was, thus, justified in reauctioning the land. In Mai Chand and others v. Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation and others, 1986 PLJ 73 : 1985 R.R.R. 158, on which reliance was placed by counsel for the appellant, the auction sale had been confirmed and it was thereafter sought to be cancelled on the ground that it was not proceeded by a proper or valid proclamation and the quality of land had not been correctly mentioned in the proclamation. The Settlement Commissioner upheld the objection and set aside the sale holding that reserve price had not been correctly determined. A learned Judge of this Court set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and held that if the reserves price was not properly fixed, it was open to the competent officer not to confirm the auction bid but having confirmed the same, it could not be set aside on that ground. As already observed earlier, in the present case the Settlement Commissioner with the result that no right had accrued to the appellant. Mai Chand''s case (supra) is, therefore, of no help to the appellant. The learned counsel also referred to some other cases as well but it is not necessary to discuss them here as they are on different facts and none of them is a case where the bid had not been approved.

In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. There is no order as to costs.