Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 855 (25 July 1996)
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
JT 1996 (7) 122
O R D
appellant appears to have come into possession of 30 bighas, 13 biswas of land.
Subsequently, the evacuee property vested in the Government 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 allotment of the land as per that procedure and
the appellant had not applied for allotment. In 1967, the land came to be sold
to the people at an 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 extened to the persons to make applications
and the last date was February
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 laid 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. In Writ Petition No.4953 the Division
Bench by order dated October
4, 1979 dismissed the
petition. Thus, this appeal.
learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the respondent was the
highest bidder, he had not deposited the full consideration 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.
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.
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2