Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2007 1 C.M. No. 23188 of 2008 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2007 ***** Jogi Ram and others Versus The State of Haryana and others. Present: Mr. I.P. Goyat , Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana ***** C.M. No. 23188 of 2008 C.M. Allowed. Amended writ petition taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2007 Heard, counsel for the petitioners. The facts in brief is that the Government of Haryana took a decision to dispose of surplus land of old Canal Rest House, situated in Rajpura, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hisar. This land belonging to Irrigation Department and measuring 139 kanal 8 marla (17.42 acres) was to be sold by way of open auction. Prior to the auction, a high level Committee consisting of Commissioner Hisar Division, Deputy Commissioner, Hisar, Administrator HUDA besides few other officers was constituted for fixing the market rate of the land. The committee held a meeting under the Chairmanship of respondent No.5 for fixing market rates of surplus land situated in the Hisar district. The Committee, by taking into consideration various Collector rates etc., fixed Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre as reasonable rate for the land in question. The land, thereafter, was put to auction. The petitioner gave bid in the auction. His bid was the highest at the rate of Rs. 4,02,000/- per acre. The petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2007 2 deposited a sum of Rs. 17,51,000/- at the spot being 25% of the total land price. The petitioner claims that he had given this bid in a fierce competition where other persons also participated. The auction proceedings were sent for approval. The petitioner, however, later learnt that despite his bid being abnormally high, respondent No.1 did not approve the auction and rather ordered that the market value of the land be re-assessed by the Committee consisting of respondents No. 5 and 6. The Committee did the re-assessment of the rate and assessed the same at Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. On this basis, respondent No.3 asked respondent No. 4 to refund the amount deposited by the petitioners, who were the highest bidder. The approval for the auction was ultimately not granted and order in this regard was made on 19.3.2007. The land was directed to be put to re-auction. The petitioner then challenged the said action of the Government in rejecting his bid and for putting the land to re-auction. Notice of motion was issued and reply has been filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent Government has placed on record Annexure R-4, conveying a decision that the land is not to be sold. The petitioner accordingly sought time to amend the writ petition and hence has filed the amended writ petition, which has been taken on record today. The issue that would now invite consideration is whether the State can be issued writ to put the land to sale by auction or otherwise even if it has decided not to do so. The counsel was accordingly asked to address the Court on this aspect. In response the counsel states that the action of the government in withdrawing this land from sale is discriminatory in nature,on the ground that Civil Writ Petition No. 8970 of 2007 3 similar pieces of land which were put to auction have not been withdrawn from the sale. That may be so. How it would lead to discrimination of the petitioner is not made out. It would be in the discretion of the Government, which is the owner, to sell any particular piece of land and withdraw any other piece of land for sale. No law is pointed out before me by which an owner of a property can be compelled to sell his property in the absence of any binding contract otherwise. The petitioners have not made any allegation of malice against any officials. The petitioners have not alleged even malice in law. The Court would not be in any competent position to issue any direction to the respondent Government to put any piece of land for sale, if it has taken decision to withdraw any land from sale. The counsel has referred to the case of R.S. Garg versus State of U.P. 2006 (4) RSJ 195 to say that discretionary power can not be exercised in an arbitrary manner. Present one is not a case of exercise of any discretionary power. The case relates to a decision taken to withdraw a particular property from sale and that is apparently not in exercise of any discretion. This general principle of law would not be attracted to the facts in this case as pleaded. No case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, is thus made out. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. January 08, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE