IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.353 of 2003 Date of decision: 15.5.2009 Smt. Jamuna Bai @ Mohan Devi. -----Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner & Secretary to Government Haryana & Others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. G.K. Khanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 & 5. ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.11.2002 passed by respondent No.1, Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, order dated 30.9.2002 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Settlement Commissioner and auction dated 23.12.1998. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she was in possession of the land in dispute and entry to that effect was made in the revenue record. Suit filed by a private person for injunction, in CWP No.353 of 2003 respect of the said land, was dismissed. However, the said land was sold by public auction by the State, which affected the rights of the petitioner. She challenged the auction proceedings. Her objections were rejected, which order has been upheld by higher authority. In the impugned orders passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana, it was held that there was no irregularity in the auction. The petitioner did not have any right to purchase the property in dispute on the basis of her possession. As per instructions dated 11.7.1988, relating to preferential allotment of evacuee property to displaced persons or persons in unauthorised possession, the said instructions were applicable to rural land and not to urban land. It was further observed that under policy of the State, preferential right to purchase land in favour of person in unauthorised possession applied only to person who was in possession prior to 1995, while the petitioner came in possession for the first time in the year 1998. 3. In the writ petition, grievance made is that in view of revenue entry in her favour, the petitioner had the possessory right and she had right to individual notice before auction could proceed. Reliance is placed on Rule 90 and 117 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. 4. The writ petition has been contested on behalf of the State as well as the auction purchaser. 2 CWP No.353 of 2003 5. The stand of the State is that the sale by public auction held on 23.12.1998, did not suffer from any irregularity and did not affect any right of the petitioner. Similar is the stand taken by the private respondents. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Question for consideration is whether the petitioner acquired any right merely by possession and whether auction of the said property is liable to be set-aside. 8. From the impugned orders of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 30.9.2002 and the Secretary, Rehabilitation dated 8.11.2002, it is clear that possession of the petitioner was unauthorised and merely by being in possession, no right accrued to the petitioner to object to the sale by auction. This being so, even if there was some irregularity in the conduct of the auction, the same could not furnish any cause of action to the petitioner. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken in the impugned orders, upholding the auction. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents have also brought to our notice order passed by another Division Bench of this Court dated 26.10.2006 in C.W.P. No.5656 of 2004 Parbhati v. State of Haryana and others, holding that mere unauthorised possession did not confer any right to challenge auction to urban land. The said matter arose out of same auction. 3 CWP No.353 of 2003 10. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 15, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ashwani JUDGE 4