CWP No. 12347 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12347 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.1.2010 State of Haryana ....Petitioner. Versus Ram Chander and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Markandey, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.1. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. By way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.4.2007(Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 whereby the auction dated 24.5.1982 qua plot No.3 was confirmed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that plot No.3 measuring 2162 square feet situated in New Colony, Gurgaon was auctioned on 15.1.1979 and Smt. Jaswant Kaur being the highest bidder who gave bid of Rs.5250/- was given the said plot. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 20.3.1979 set aside the said auction and the plot in question was re-auctioned on 22.6.1981 for Rs.20,000/- CWP No. 12347 of 2009 -2- to Shri Daya Singh. The said auction was also set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide order dated 28.9.1981. Thereafter, on 24.5.1982, the plot in question was again put to auction by the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon and respondent No.1-Ram Chander was recorded to be the highest bidder for Rs.1,10,000/- who deposited Rs.22,100/- as earnest money and the rest of the amount of Rs.87,900/- was to be paid by the auction purchaser in seven yearly equal installments after confirmation of the auction which was subject to the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. A representation was made by one Smt. Yashoda Devi alleging that the path to her house was through the plot in question and that she may be provided path. The Deputy Commissioner referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer for enquiry. Despite repeated letters by the office of Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon/Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, the sale file was not returned by the said Sub Divisional Officer as the same was misplaced in his office. On 31.1.2002, respondent No.1 made a representation to the Teshildar (Sales), Gurgaon for transfer of the said plot who vide order dated 18.3.2002 rejected the representation due to non-prosecution. On 4.4.2002, permission was granted for reconstruction of the sale file. The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide order dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure P-1) ordered for re-auction of the plot in question. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.1 filed revision petition before respondent No.2 who vide order dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) accepted the revision petition and confirmed the auction. Hence, the present writ petition. Upon notice of motion having been issued, respondent CWP No. 12347 of 2009 -3- No.1 filed a written statement pleading that the writ petition was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It was further pleaded that the auction in favour of the answering respondent was set aside by passing one line order and, therefore, in absence of any finding that the auction was conducted in violation of the provisions of the Act, the re-auction of the plot could not have been ordered. It was next pleaded that the answering respondent was a bonafide purchaser of the plot in open auction and his revision was rightly allowed by respondent No.2 vide order dated 9.4.2007 (Annexure P-2). The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. Respondent No.1 had given the highest bid of Rs.1,10,000/- in respect of plot in dispute in auction held on 24.5.1982 and had also deposited Rs.22,100/- as earnest money at the spot. The balance auction money amounting to Rs.87,900/- was to be paid in 7 yearly equal instalments after confirmation of sale in his favour. No objection had been filed by any person against this auction. However, one Smt. Yashoda Devi resident of New Colony, Gurgaon had filed an application seeking path to her house through this plot which could not be a ground for cancelling the auction in favour of respondent No.1. Moreover, in view of reply given in sub para (f) of para 10 of the written statement wherein auction values of plot Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 situated in the same New Colony, Gurgaon adjacent to disputed plot No.3 have been depicted which clearly shows that the auction value of the plot at CWP No. 12347 of 2009 -4- Rs.1,10,000/- was not unreasonable. No fault could be pointed out in the auction proceedings conducted on 24.5.1982 which could form ground for setting aside the auction. In view of the above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. January 12, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE