C.W.P. No. 5615 of 1983 Pal Singh vs. State of Haryana and another Present: Mr.R.S.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.C.Gupta, Asst. A.G.Haryana Mr. C.L.Ghai, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** Land measuring 64 kanals in Khasra No. 158 at village Gumthala then in District Ambala (now District Jagadhari) was put to restricted auction on 30.11.1982. The petitioner was found to be the highest bidder with a sum of Rs.61,000/- offered by him. The auction was accordingly done in favour of the petitioner. The sale was also confirmed by A.S.O. (Sales) on 20.1.1983. While confirming the sale, the A.S.O. (Sales) dismissed the objection filed by respondent No.2 . What mainly weighed with him while dismissing the objection, filed by respondent No.2 was that he (respondent No.2) had not deposited the challenge money by 17.1.1983 which was the date fixed in this regard. The respondent impugned the said order passed by A.S.O.(Sales) by filing a revision petition alleging that for holding auction, no munadi was done by the Chowkidar in the village and accordingly the auction was held in favour of the petitioner without proper publication or notice to him and the other persons similarly situated like him. On 30.5.1983, the Joint Secretary(Reh)- cum- Settlement Commissioner, Haryana set aside the auction which was in favour of the petitioner. This order is at Annexure P-1. While so doing, the revisional authority found that there was defect in the manner of conducting the auction. As per the order, the auction in C.W.P. No. 5615 of 1983 -2- this case was conducted by Naib Tehsildar (Sales) and its proforma was furnished through Tehsildar (Sales). Column No.14 of the proforma was left blank in which the recommendation was to be made by Tehsildar (Sales) in case the auction was conducted by Naib Tehsildar (Sales). It was even noticed that the attendance of the persons, who were present at the time of bid, was not marked or available on the attendance sheet attached with the sale file. Thus the auction confirmed in favour of the petitioner was set aside on these grounds. The order confirming the sale dated 20.1.1983 was also set aside and directions were further issued for putting the land on re-auction after completing the necessary formalities in this regard. The petitioner had even filed a review against this order, but the same was dismissed on 3.8.1983. The ground for review was that the impugned order was decided ex parte as the opportunity was not given to the petitioner to make submission through his counsel, who was statedly not well. Finding that there was no patent error of the fact or clerical mistake which would call for interference, the review application was dismissed. The petitioner has, thus, challenged both the orders by way of present writ petition, which stands admitted since the year 1983. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 points out that on setting aside the auction in favour of the petitioner, the possession of the land was handed over to respondent No.2 and he continuously is in possession of the land ever since the year 1983. The Court further points out that respondent No. 2 has made major improvements in this land since the date the same is in his possession and to disturb the same arrangement now after lapse of such a long period would not be fair even in equity. C.W.P. No. 5615 of 1983 -3- Mr.Chahar, however, still contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that challenge raised by respondent No.2 could not have been allowed as he had failed to deposit the challenge money by the due date. As already noticed, the ground for setting aside the auction in favour of the petitioner was not the non deposit of the challenge money by the due date but due to improper documentation and non completion of requisite legal formalities in regard to the sale and confirmation thereof as per the requirement of law. It is also noticed that the attendance of the persons, who had participated in this restricted auction, was also not noted at the time of auction. Accordingly the sale and the confirmation of the same was set aside. The petitioner had sought review of the same order which was also declined. It is then pointed out that the land was required to be put to re-auction as per the impugned order (Annexure P-1) and it was not done. However, there is no pleading made in this regard in the writ petition. It is not made out whether the land was put to re-auction or not or it was handed over to respondent No.2 after setting aside of the order auctioning the same in favour of the petitioner. It would not thus be possible to go into this aspect at this belated stage. This plea as not raised in writ petition can not be permitted at this stage. It would also not be fair to disturb the arrangement which has continued since the year 1983. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of this extra ordinary jurisdiction in this case at this belated stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petitioner is left to bear his own cost. (RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE January 09, 2008 anita