Civil Writ Petition No. 15528 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15528 of 2009 Date of decision: February 7, 2011 Swaran Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amabala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Kanwar Jagtar Singh, Advocate,for Mr. M.K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 8. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the sale of his house by way of auction. This house has been bought in auction by respondent No.3, who is none other than the mother-in- law of the petitioner. This house was put to sale through auction to realize amount of interest and penalties imposed upon the petitioner under the orders of Court of law. The petitioner alleges that proper procedure was not followed to sell the house by auction and the petitioner was not given chance to pay the amount of penalty at any time. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, had given an undertaking to make the entire payment and had also expressed his readiness to pay interest Civil Writ Petition No. 15528 of 2009 -2- and compensation, as may be determined by the Court, to the purchasers of the property, when notice was issued in this case. At the time of issuing notice of motion, dispossession of the petitioner was ordered to be stayed. The respondents have put in appearance and reply on behalf of the auction purchaser, who is mother-in-law of the petitioner, is filed. A common reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 8. The said respondents would pray for dismissal of the writ petition by pointing out that the petitioner stood surety in numerous criminal cases as he had joined hands with criminals for some extraneous consideration. Those accused, for whom the petitioner stood surety, failed to appear before the Courts. The petitioner failed to produce the accused persons. Since the accused had absconded from the trial, the Court had cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds and forfeited the same to the State. When summoned, the petitioner, who stood surety, did not respond to the Court notices. Ultimately the Court had to resort to issue the recovery certificate to the District Magistrate, Ambala, for recovery of the amount on account of forfeiture of the surety bonds, which was to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner was also issued various notices by the Tehsildar, Ambala, for depositing the amount, but the petitioner did not care to comply with the order. The amount due against the petitioner was ordered to be recovered by way of land revenue. The petitioner had a house in Parsuram Colony, Ambala, which was attached and subsequently permission of the Collector, Ambala, was obtained for sale of the house under Section 75 of the Civil Writ Petition No. 15528 of 2009 -3- Punjab Land Revenue Act. The petitioner still did not care to deposit the amount. His house was then put to sale by way of public auction, so that the proceeds received from the sale could be utilized for defraying the outstanding amount. The petitioner was also served a defaulters notice by fixing the date of auction as 31st October, 2008. The petitioner was well aware, but still did not take any action to deposit the amount, which was recoverable. It is alleged that the petitioner had malafide intention for which he acted in this manner as he wanted his wife and children to be thrown out from the premises. The respondents claims to have participated in the auction and had purchased the house for wife and children of the petitioner only. This sale had been confirmed on expiry of 30 days from the date of auction. The certificate had also been issued and accordingly, mutation has also been sanctioned in favour of respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also points out that respondent No.3 has bought the house in auction to provide roof for the wife and children of the petitioner. The counsel submits that the present writ petition is just a misuse of process by the petitioner. The aim of the petitioner is to cause harassment to his wife and family. If any interference is now made, it would mean further harassment of innocent family of the petitioner. If the petitioner had been sincere, he would not have challenged the sale of house in favour of his mother- in law, who has done so for his family only. Counsel for the petitioner did not make any submission and only sought time to file replication, which was declined. Civil Writ Petition No. 15528 of 2009 -4- Thereafter, counsel submits that the Court may pass any appropriate order. Only appropriate order is to maintain the confirmation of sale in favour of respondent No.3. The petitioner has misused the process of Court and thus, does not deserve to be heard. The writ petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. February 7, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE