IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 10258 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.7.2009 Paramjit Singh and ors …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Hardip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 12.6.2009 (P14) passed by the Collector (Panchayat Land) (DDPO) Patiala (respondent-3) and the order dated 29.6.2009 (P16) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner) (respondent-2) whereby the auction of the Panchayat land in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the said orders dated 12.06.2009 (P-14) and 29.06.2009 (P-16). It is submitted that 84-1/2 Bighas of Shamlat land of village Islampur is auctioned by the Gram Panchayat, Village Islampur (respondent No.4) every year. For the year 2009-10, the auction vide resolution dated 16.04.2009 was fixed for 24.4.2009. Wide publicity of the auction programme was carried out. The Programme of the auction was published in the local newspaper – ‘Lok Ran’, Rajpura on 17.4.2009. Besides, proclamation in the village was also done by the village Chowkidar 1 CWP 10258 of 2009 and announcements were made from the loud speaker of the Gurdwara Sahib. The terms and conditions of the auction were announced on 24.4.2009 by the Administrator, Gram Panchayat in a gathering. One of the conditions of the auction was that the reserve price of the land could be 30% more than the previous year as per instructions issued by the government. However, according to the petitioner, no one came forward to make a bid at the enhanced reserve price. Therefore, the auction could not take place and it was adjourned to be held on 16.5.2009 and resolution dated 24.4.2009 for getting the announcement made in the village through the Chowkidar and also from the speaker of the Gurdwara Sahib so that more persons could attend the auction was passed. On 16.5.2009, which was the date fixed for auction, the terms and conditions of the auction were announced in the gathering for the purpose of auctioning the Shamlat land measuring 84-1/2 Bighas comprised in Plots No.1 to 6. It is submitted that auction of Plots Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 could be completed as no one gave a bid for Plots No.1 and 2 meaning thereby that out of 84 ½ bighas land only 59 bighas of land could be auctioned and the land measuring 25 ½ bighas remained un- auctioned. The auction, it is submitted, was held in accordance with rules. The petitioners bid for 3 plots i.e. Plots Nos.3, 5 and 6 for a sum of Rs 78,500/-. Though there was no objection at that time but after 24 days one Jeet Singh (respondent-5) submitted an application to the Collector (respondent-3) for cancellation of the auction on the ground that the auction of the Shamlat land of the Gram Panchayat (respondent No.4) had been conducted in a secret way and in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary. Notice of the application was given to both the parties. Jeet Singh (respondent No.5) aforesaid submitted that he was willing to take the Plots 2 CWP 10258 of 2009 Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 for an amount of Rs 95,150/-. The Collector (Panchayat Land) DDPO (respondent-3) after considering the facts and circumstances observed that the Gram Panchayat (respondent No.4) had auctioned the Shamlat land i.e. Plot No.3 to Paramjit Singh for Rs 13,000/-, Plot No.4 to Surinder Singh for Rs 18,850/-, Plot No.5 to Paramjit Singh for Rs 14,300/- and Plot No.6 to Amrik Singh for Rs 49,000/- on 16.5.2009. It was found from the Proceedings Register of the Panchayat that not many people were present at the time of the auction. Jeet Singh (respondent-5) i.e. applicant before the Collector (respondent No.3) had offered lease amount of Rs 1,10,000/- in respect of the said plots and deposited a sum of Rs 78,500/- in the account of the Panchayat Samiti, Rajpura as security. It was found from the Panchayat Proceedings Register that there were not many participants in the auction and that it was conducted secretly which was not in the interest of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the auction conducted by the Gram Panchayat on 16.5.2009 in respect of Plots Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of Paramjit Singh, Surinder Singh, Paramjit Singh and Amrik Singh respectively was cancelled vide order dated 12.06.2009 (P-14) and it was ordered that the offer of lease amount of Rs 1,10,000/- for the abovesaid plots for the year 2009-10 given by the complainant – Jeet Singh (respondent No.5) be kept as reserve price and the auction be held again for a highest bidder. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order dated 12.06.2009 (P-14), filed appeal (P-15) under Section 10-A(7) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 before the Commissioner (respondent No.2). The Commissioner (respondent No.2), vide his order dated 29.6.2009 (P-16), observed that the advertisement for the auction of the land 3 CWP 10258 of 2009 for the year 2009-10 was published in the newspaper ‘Lok Ran’ on 24.4.2009 and the resolution dated 6.4.2009 with regard to the expenses was passed. On 24.4.2009, it was announced at the time of the auction that the land will be leased by increasing the lease amount to the extent of 30% than the last year . Nobody was ready to give bid at the enhanced lease amount and thus, the auction was not carried out. As per resolution dated 16.5.2009, only 4 plots out of the 6 plots were auctioned at the enhanced rate of 30% from the last year. If Jeet Singh (respondent-5) was interested in taking the land on lease, then he could take the land of 2 plots by giving his bid. The Commissioner (respondent No.2), from the perusal of the record and Pattanamas on the case file found that only 4-4 persons came present to give bid of each plot which indicated that not many persons came present at the time of the auction, which further made it clear that there was no open auction as per law. Accordinlgy, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of Section 10-A of the Act, the Collector can cancel or vary sale, lease, etc. of lands vested in Panchayats. It is submitted that there has been no contravention of the provisions of the Act or of fraud or concealment of facts. Therefore, the authorities have gravely erred in passing the order whereby the auction of the plots have been cancelled. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that there is no error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the authorities under the Act in canceling the auction of the four plots. Section 10-A of the Act reads as under:- 4 CWP 10258 of 2009 “10-A. Power of the Collector to cancel or vary leases etc. of lands vested in Panchayats - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Shamlat law or any other law for the time being in force the Collector may call for from any Panchayat in his district the record of any lease, contract or agreement entered into by the Panchayat in respect of any land vested or deemed to be vested in it, whether such lease, contract or agreement is entered before or after the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Amendment Act 1964 and examine such record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such lease, contract or agreement. (2) Where, on examination of the record under sub-section (1) and after making such inquiry, if any, as he may deem fit, the Collector is satisfied that such lease, contract or agreement – (i) has been entered into in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder; or (ii) has been entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of fact; or (iii) is detrimental to the interests of the Panchayat as prescribed, the Collector may, notwithstanding anything as aforesaid, cancel the lease, contract or agreement or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may think fit; 5 CWP 10258 of 2009 Provided that no order under this sub-section shall be passed by the Collector without affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lease, contract or agreement.” In terms of Section 10-A(2), it is provided that where on examination of the record under sub-section (1) and after making such inquiry, if any, as the Collector may deem fit, he (Collector) is satisfied that such lease, contract or agreement has been entered into in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder; or has been entered into as a result of fraud or concealment of facts; or is detrimental to the interest of the Panchayat as prescribed, he may notwithstanding anything as aforesaid, cancel the lease, contract or agreement or vary the terms thereof unconditionally or subject to such conditions as he may think fit. In terms of the proviso, no order under this sub-section is to be passed by the Collector without affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lease, contract or agreement. In the present case, the Collector (respondent-3) and the Commissioner (respondent-2) have concurrently held that the auction of the plots was not in the interest of the Panchayat (respondent No.4) and was rather detrimental to their interest inasmuch as there was not sufficient participation in the auction. The said order having been passed concurrently by the authorities under the Act, this Court is not to sit in appeal over the same. Judicial review of quasi judicial orders is limited and this Court cannot substitute its decision for that of the authorities or dislodge the conclusion reached at after appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no illegality or irregularity in the decision making process 6 CWP 10258 of 2009 which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory powers. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 14.7.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 7