C.W.P. No. 4846 of 1985 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4846 of 1985 Date of Decision: May 3, 2010 Karam Chand (died) through his LRs ................................ Petitioner Versus The Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation)-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana and others ............................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. C.L. Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Wasu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing of the order dated 16.9.1985 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 24.4.1985 passed by respondent No.2. Since the petitioner has already expired, therefore, the present petition is being pursued by his legal representatives. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 8 Bighas 3 Biswas comprised in Khasra No. 259 situated in village Islam Nagar, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. The aforementioned C.W.P. No. 4846 of 1985 [ 2 ] land was purchased in an open auction held on 6.4.1985 wherein the petitioner had given the highest bid of Rs.31,200/- and had also deposited the earnest money of Rs.7,800/-. As per Government Instructions, the displaced persons who left their land in Pakistan, had a prior vested right for allotment of the land. According to rules, the auction conducted had to be confirmed by the Settlement Officer. Before the auction could be confirmed, it transpired that respondent No.4-Nirmal Singh was a displaced person from Pakistan and had already filed an application for allotment of the land but despite his application, his claim remained unsatisfied. In view of the aforementioned fact, the Settlement Officer (Sales)-respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.4.1985 set aside the auction. The aforementioned order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition which was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1985 (Annexure P4) passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. Mr. C.L.Ghai, counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there was no illegality in conducting the auction and as the petitioner was the highest bidder and had also deposited the earnest money, therefore, the auction is liable to be confirmed. Learned counsel further submits that no objections were raised with regard to the conduct of auction and, therefore, the auction could not be set aside by the Departmental Authorities. Learned counsel has further argued that in case respondent No.4 is entitled to allotment being a displaced person, then he may be provided alternative land. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner are controverted by Mr. Wasu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State C.W.P. No. 4846 of 1985 [ 3 ] of Haryana. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the auction was defective as the publication and proclamation was not valid as there was no report or signature of the Sarpanch or any other respectable of the village. Learned counsel further submits that no Mushti Munadi had been effected in the village. Counsel for the respondent further submits that as respondent No.4 was a displaced person, therefore, his claim had to be satisfied first and only thereafter could the auction take place. In this regard, counsel for the State submits that the application filed by respondent No.4 was already pending before the settlement authorities. Counsel for the petitioner has controverted the argument raised by the counsel for the State by stating that as far as proclamation is concerned, there was no defect because 31 bids were made by different persons and more than 50 persons were present. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the order passed by the Joint Secretary-cum- Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, dated 16.9.198 shows that a categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the proclamation was defective as there was no report of the respectables of the village or Patwari of the village with regard to auction of the land in village. As far as the proclamation is concerned, even if a number of persons had given the bids yet as there was no report or signature of the Sarpanch or any other respectable of the village i.e. Lambardar, Patwari etc. to the effect that Mushtri Munadi had been made in the village and that no copy of the proclamation notice has been sent to the Patwari and no report of the Patwari concerned with regard to the auction is on record, therefore, there is a technical defect in the proclamation. Apart from the above, the claim of a C.W.P. No. 4846 of 1985 [ 4 ] displaced person whose application was pending and remained unsatisfied had to be given priority for allotment of the land before it could be put to auction. In the present case, the application filed by respondent No.4 was pending at the time when the auction had taken place. In these circumstances, the Settlement Officer was well within his rights not to confirm the auction conducted on 6.4.1985. I find no illegality in the orders dated 24.4.1985 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 16.9.1985 passed by respondent No.1. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. 3.5.2010 ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) Rupi JUDGE