IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9729 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : MAY 30, 2011 SHAMSHER SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Gargi Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 Auction of panchayat land has been cancelled by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, vide order dated 18.5.2011 (Annexure P-4), while holding thus:- “From the circumstances, as detailed above, and the record, it is clear that the panchayat has violated the instructions issued by the Government, by concealing from the undersigned the court case and the cancellation of earlier auction, and by unnecessarily leasing out cultivable land for excavation of earth. Therefore keeping in view the public interest the auction held for excavation of earth is hereby cancelled. Shamlat land be kept for auction, for agriculture purpose,a s earlier, to be held on 24-5- 2011 at 11 am at Govt. Primary School, Nangal Araiyan, after making announcement through Civil Writ Petition No.9729 of 2011 2 mushtri/munadi. On this date, video graphy be also done as per the govt. instructions at the time of auction.” 2 Relevant documents of court case mentioned in the extracted portion of the impugned order and reason for earlier cancellation of auction have not been shown to this Court. 3 Further, considering the equitable part, I find that cultivable land had been auctioned for excavation of earth. If such action is endorsed, the land would be rendered useless for agricultural purposes for all times to come and, therefore, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order has been passed in public interest, which cannot be questioned. Since the auction had been held on 14.5.2011 and cancelled on 18.5.2011, the petitioner would not have spent any amount so as to develop land or excavate earth. No receipts have been placed on the record to show that substantial money had been invested by the petitioner after taking the land in auction. The amount deposited by the petitioner can always be refunded to the petitioner. 4 A hyper technical ground has been raised by the petitioner that auction could not have been cancelled by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. 5 In writ jurisdiction, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the issue raised by the petitioner cannot be considered, firstly, for the reason that the pleadings are not supported by relevant material. In case, there was a court case and there was a legal impediment in conducting Civil Writ Petition No.9729 of 2011 3 auction of land, the same was required to be shown to the Court. Secondly, the impugned order has been passed in public interest, which cannot be disputed. The writ court would not allow the land to be wasted by way of excavation of earth. 6 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. May 30, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?