CWP No.1630 of 1984 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1630 of 1984 Date of Decision: 5.8.2008 Sardari Lal and another .....Petitioners Vs. The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this writ petition is, to an order dated 24.10.1983 passed by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and the consequent auction notice dated 17.4.1984. The petitioners purchased land measuring 44 K 2 M bearing Khasra No.64/1, 3 to 7 and 14 Min situated in Village Munak, Tehsil and Distt. Karnal, in a restricted auction held by respondent no.2, on 15.1.1981. The highest bid of Rs.40,000/- offered by the petitioners was accepted. The petitioners deposited Rs.5,000/- being 1/8th share of the auction money. Respondent no.3, filed an objection petition on 23.1.1981 and offered Rs.48,000/- against the sale price of Rs.40,000/- by alleging that she was in physical possession for the last many years and notice of the auction had not been served upon her. Respondent no.3 was directed to deposit the CWP No.1630 of 1984 2 challenge money by 23.6.1983. It is asserted by the petitioners that as respondent no.3 failed to deposit the challenge money, the restricted auction held in favour of the petitioners was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Officer (Sales), Chandigarh on 23.6.1983. Aggrieved by the confirmation of sale, respondent no.3, filed a revision under Rule 11 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Rules,1976. The Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation, Haryana, vide order dated 24.10.1983, accepted the revision by holding that the objections are genuine, respondent no.3 was prevented from taking part in the auction, on account of inadequate publicity. As a consequence, the sale in favour of the petitioners was set aside and the re-auction was ordered after wide publicity and by observing all requisite formalities. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation, has held that the objections filed by respondent no.3 are genuine. It has also been held that respondent no.3 was prevented from taking part in a auction, on account of inadequate publicity. The Joint Secretary, however, has not referred to any material, whatsoever, in support of these conclusions. It is submitted that the merits of the objections, namely; respondent no.3's alleged possession over the land in dispute and discrepancies in the process of auction were two separate matters. The Joint Secretary confused the two issues and held, without assigning any reasons, that the objections are genuine. It is further submitted that the impugned order, does not refer to the nature of “inadequate publicity” and the reasons, which prevented respondent no.3 from taking part in the auction. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. It is further argued that before setting aside an auction, the CWP No.1630 of 1984 3 objector is required to prima facie establish two essential pre-requisites namely; (i) material irregularity or fraud in publication or conduct of sale and (ii) substantial injury to a person as a result of such fraud or irregularity. In the absence of any material, before respondent no.1 to establish material irregularity, fraud, or substantial injury and any finding in terms thereof, the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, had no jurisdiction to set aside the auction. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the findings recorded by respondent no.1 are legal and valid and even if, deficient, as to reference to relevant facts, respondent no.1 exercises jurisdiction of a quasi judicial authority and he is not expected to write a judgement akin to a judgement written by a Court. It is further submitted that the respondent no.3 has produced sufficient material on record, to establish that she was in possession of the land and was prevented on account of inadequate publicity from participating in the auction/or putting forward her claim as a person in possession, with a preferential right to allotment. It is further submitted that as the respondent no.3 offered a higher amount,namely Rs.48,000/-, the Tehsildar (Sales) had no jurisdiction to confirm the auction and his order has been rightly set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition have already been narrated herein above, they do not merit repetition, except to the extent that respondent no.3, asserts a right to participate in the auction and for the said purpose, alleges deposit of challenge money on 2.9.1983. The auction, however, was confirmed on 23.6.1983. The revisional CWP No.1630 of 1984 4 authority had recorded a finding that a perusal of the record discloses that respondent no.3 was prevented from taking part in an auction, on account of inadequate publicity. No record, much less relevant record has been referred to by the authority or produced before this Court, in support of the aforementioned finding. Respondent no.1, while returning the above findings should have made a reference to the material, that led him to conclude that respondent no.3 was prevented from taking part in an auction on account of inadequate publicity It would also be necessary to mention that respondent no.1 went on to hold that there is every reason to set aside the sale in favour of the auction purchaser. The reasons, however, for setting aside the auction are not forth coming. In order to place the above facts in their correct perspective, it would be necessary to reproduce a relevant part of the order passed by respondent no.1 :- “Now the point is to ascertain the genuineness of the objection petition filed by Smt.Munni Bai in respect of sale in favour of the respondents. She was allowed to deposit challenge money by my order dated 24.8.83 upto 5.9.83 and she complied with the orders and deposited a sum of Rs.6000/- by way of challenge money on 2.9.83. Thus it is clear that her objection is genuine. From the perusal of the record I find that she was prevented from taking part in the bid. This might be on account of inadequate publicity. Thus, there is every reason to set aside the sale in favour of the auction purchasers. In view of the discussion made above, I set aside the sale in favour of the respondent held on 15.1.81 and CWP No.1630 of 1984 5 its subsequent confirmation on 23.6.19083. The land shall be put to re-auction after wide publicity and observing all requisite formalities. The bid should start from Rs.48,000/- the amount offered by Smt.Munni Bai, objection petitioner.” A perusal of the above extract, leaves no manner of doubt that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements of a quasi judicial order, namely; that a quasi judicial order must disclose a brief narrative of the facts and the submissions, followed by a discernible process of reasoning, supported by reference to relevant material leading upto the ultimate conclusion, The impugned order, as is apparent from the above extract is devoid of a rudimentary process of reasoning much less any reasons. I, therefore, have no option but to accept the writ petition, set aside the order dated 24.10.1983 and remit the matter to the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, or to any other officer of competent jurisdiction, to whom the powers exercised by the Joint Secretary,Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner may have been delegated for adjudication afresh. Though, the writ petition has been pending since long, in the absence of relevant record, in the shape of auction file, the revenue record and all other relevant documents, it would be unfair to record any opinion for or against either party. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 24.10.1983 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, who shall decide the matter himself or entrust the case to an officer of competent CWP No.1630 of 1984 6 jurisdiction, who shall decide the case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryna, Chandigarh, on 8.9.2008. No order as to costs. 5.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE