LPA No.463 of 2009 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CASE NO.: LPA No.463 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: May 28, 2009 SUKHDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER ...APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: MR. B.S. SIDHU, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 10.3.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge vide which their prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue them a certificate of ownership pertaining to the Canal Rest House at Ferozepur which the appellants had purchased in an open auction was rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Department of Irrigation through Executive Engineer Eastern Canal Division, Ferozepur issued a public notice in the newspaper on 22.11.1999, wherein numerous properties belonging to the State of Punjab as mentioned in public notice were sought to be auctioned. The father of the appellants participated in the auction held on 16.11.1999, and was the highest bidder for the Canal Rest House situated in village Chak Pakhi, Tehsil and District Ferozepur measuring 4.90 acres. The bid for the aforementioned Canal Rest House was Rs.18,01,000/-. The father of the appellants deposited Rs.4.70 lacs, i.e. LPA No.463 of 2009 -2 25% of the total price at the spot as per terms and conditions of the auction. Thereafter the entire amount was also deposited vide receipts Annexure P-3 to P-7. As the land was not being transferred in the name of father of the appellants and after his death in the name of the appellants, a legal notice was served seeking a direction that certificate of ownership be issued with regard to the auctioned property. As no response was forthcoming hence the appellants filed writ petition in this Court which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. While hearing the writ petition the learned Single Judge wanted to know from the State counsel as to why such a prime property like the Canal Rest House is being auctioned by the State Government. Directions were issued to the State counsel to get instructions from the Government. The State counsel on getting instructions from the concerned officials informed the Court that the Canal Rest House was sold without seeking prior approval of the Government. It was stated by the counsel that the auction was not approved by the Cabinet and the Government has decided not to execute the conveyance deed with regard to sale by auction conducted in pursuance to the public notice. Thus, on finding that no proper approval had been sought from the Government the writ petition was dismissed. Counsel for the appellants has contended that by virtue of the public notice dated 22.11.1999 (Annexure P-1) twenty different properties belonging to the Irrigation Department was sought to be auctioned. It is submitted that in the case of land measuring 4.90 acres situated in village 'Mohan Ke Uttar' mentioned at S.No.2 in the auction notice, also, the LPA No.463 of 2009 -3 respondents did not execute the sale deed. In this case the vendees filed CWP No.7076 of 2002, seeking direction to the Irrigation Department to get the sale deed executed and to transfer the title in the name of auction purchasers and this Court vide order dated 23.7.2002, allowed the writ petition directing the Irrigation Department to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners therein. It is submitted that the present case is similar to CWP No.7076 of 2002, titled as Rajinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, therefore, similar directions should be issued in the present case also. A perusal of the of Rajinder Kumar's case (supra) shows that in that case the reason for not executing the sale deed was that the land in question was purchased in an open auction only by petitioner No.1, namely, Rajinder Kumar and the names of other two petitioners were included in the agreement subsequently. It was stated that at the time of auction 15% of the sale price was deposited only by Rajinder Kumar and not by all the three petitioners. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the sale deed was not executed. In the present case the facts are entirely different. The reason for non-execution of the sale deed was that the auction was without prior approval and sanction of the authority. It was not approved by the Cabinet and hence it was decided not to execute the conveyance deed. It is thus clear that the entire auction held in the present case was illegal and therefore, the title of the auctioned property cannot be transferred in the name of the appellants. As far as the auction pertaining to Canal Rest House in the present case is concerned, the same could not have been ordered to be auctioned without the prior approval and sanction of the competent LPA No.463 of 2009 -4 authority. A perusal of the impugned judgement passed by the learned Single Judge clearly shows that the State counsel had stated that decision to hold the auction was not approved by the Cabinet and hence it was decided not to execute the conveyance deed. It is thus clear that the entire auction held in the present case was illegal and hence the title cannot be transferred in the name of the appellants. For the aforementioned reasons the facts of Rajinder Kumar's case (supra) are entirely different from the facts of the present case and hence its ratio is not applicable. Otherwise also, we find no reason that why such a prime property like the Canal Rest House at Ferozepur is sought to be auctioned by the State Government. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that Canal Rest Houses are situated at very ideal locations and it seems that the same were sought to be auctioned for the benefit of some persons who were close to the persons in power. If the State's economy is in doldrums, then selling of prima properties for the benefit of few would not help them in improving the financial condition of the State. In view of the above, we find no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 28, 2009 (NIRMALJIT KAUR) Gulati JUDGE