Mai Chand vs Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana

I.S. Tiwana, J. (Oral)

The petitioners, who concededly are Harijans, were the highest bidders at a restricted auction sale of about 53 Kanals of land in village Ugla, held on 23rd November, 1982, for an amount of Rs. 36,000/. They deposited Rs. 4,500/ with the respondent authorities and the sale was confirmed in their favour vide order dated 3rd June, 1983, by the Settlement Officer (Sales), Ambala. After about a year of this confirmation, on 25th June, 1984, respondent No.3, who claimed to be in possession of the said land moved a petition before the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)cumSettlement Commissioner, Haryana, for setting aside of the sale on the ground that it was not preceded by a proper or valid proclamation and that the quality of land had also not been correctly mentioned in the said proclamation. The defect pointed out was that out of the entire land about 18 Kanals only was Ghairmumkin (the remaining 35 Kanals being Barani) as per the record, but the entire land was shown to be Ghairmumkin in the proclamation. Before the Settlement Commissioner, besides controverting that there was no flaw in the auction proceedings and that after confirmation of the sale, the claim of the petitioners could not prejudiced by any irregularity or omission on the part of the Departmental Authorities, it was also highlighted on behalf of the petitioners, that respondent No.3 had no locus standi to challenge this auction sale, as it was only a restricted auction, meaning thereby that in it Harijans alone could bid. The Settlement Commissioner while brushing aside the latter mentioned objection on the ground that there was no provision in law which laid down that such an auction could only be assailed by a Harijan and not by a nonHarijan held that the reserve price of the auctioned land was not correctly determined and thus set aside the sale in favour of the petitioners. Copy of this order is Annexure P2. The petitioners assail this order on a variety of grounds.

Their first contention is that the auction of the land having been confined to Harijans alone, respondent No.3 had no locus standi to prefer any objections before the Settlement Commissioner, under Rule 11 of the Rules known as Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties framed by the Haryana Government. This rule reads as follows :

"Powers of Revision. The Settlement Commissioner may call for the records of any case pending before or decided by a Subordinate Officer and pass such order as may be deemed fit including the resumption of property. Provided that the party affected by the proposed order shall be given an opportunity of being heard."

The second objection is that even if as per the findings of the Settlement Commissioner the reserve price of the land should have been fixed at Rs. 39,500/, the same cannot be made a ground to set aside the sale in their favour. This is more so when the fixation of the reserve price was an act of the Departmental Authorities. It is the undisputed position in the instant case that the reserve price of the property in question was determined by the competent authority, i.e., the Settlement Officer at Rs. 21,563/ and the same had been done prior to the auction proceedings.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I find that the above noted contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are not devoid of merit.

As has been pointed out right in the beginning of this judgment and is not disputed before me that the land had been sold in favour of the petitioners as a result of restricted auction, i.e., only Harijans were entitled to bid. In view of this admitted fact, to my mind, respondent No.3 had no locus standi to challenge that auction as he himself could never be a bidder. The approach of the Settlement Commissioner that there is no law laying down as to who can assail the proceedings of restricted auction is just meaningless. This respondent not being a Harijan could not possibly participate in the auction. Before a person can successfully assail some body''s rights in a Court or before a quasijudicial Tribunal, he has essentially to show that he is aggrieved by the order sought to be assailed. Only a person whose rights have been affected can be an aggrieved person. In the absence of any such grievance he obviously cannot have a locus standi to impugn an action which does not affect him. As has been pointed out above, this respondent not being a Harijan cannot possibly assail proceedings of this restricted auction.

So far as the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, I again find merit in it. As has been pointed out above, the sale has been effected for a sum of Rs. 36,000/, though as per the findings of the Settlement Commissioner its reserve price should have been Rs. 39,500/ instead of Rs. 21,563/ as determined by the Settlement Officer. This determination had preceded the auction proceedings and no body assailed the same at any stage. In the face of this how can the respondentauthorities be now allowed to turn around and say that since the reserve price of the land had not been correctly fixed by one of their functionaries, i.e., the Settlement Officer, who, in law, as pointed out earlier, was competent to do so, the auction proceedings stand vitiated. The petitioners were undoubtedly the highest bidders and in case the bid money was in any manner lower than the reserve price or was not acceptable to them, they could refuse to confirm the auction sale. Having done that, I do not see any justification or rationale with these authorities to set aside the auction on the basis of a ground for which they have themselves to blame. Otherwise also I do not find any such great variance between the auction money and the reserve price, which according to the Settlement Commissioner should have been at Rs. 39,500/ which can justify the setting aside of the sale. If the instructions, or the policy of the government was to restrict the sale to Harijans alone, then merely because these poor petitioners have in any way paid Rs. 3,500/ less than what was expected to be the reserve price, the setting aside of the sale, to my mind, would violate that policy rather than implement the same.

For the reasons stated above, I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner, Annexure P2, and set aside the same. This writ petition is accordingly allowed, but with no order as to costs.