CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16680 of 2009 Date of Decision : 19.08.2010 Krishan Singh (dead through L.Rs.) .......... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 28.10.2003 (Annexure P-12), vide which the auction of eucalyptus and Sheesham trees, standing in the Panchayat land bearing Khasra Nos. 94 and 95 held in favour of the petitioner on 9.4.2003, has been postponed illegally without intimation to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus for directions to restore the lease, in favour of the petitioner, in pursuance to the auction held on 9.4.2003. The facts which are not in dispute are, that respondent No.5 Gram Panchayat resolved to hold auction of 772 eucalyptus CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -2- ***** and sheesham trees standing in the area of cremation ground of Khasra No. 94 & 95 on 31.3.2003. In pursuance to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, auction of 772 eucalyptus and sheesham trees was held on 9.4.2003, in which the petitioner was successful, being the highest bidder. The petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 5,90,000/- (Rupees five lac and ninety thousand only). The case of the petitioner is, that 1/4th of the total lease money was deposited at the spot, whereas 3/4th amount was to be deposited within 15 days, at the time of cutting of the trees. When the petitioner started to cut the trees, the number of residents of the village filed a complaint, about the legality of the auction to respondent No.2, by claiming, that the trees belonged to the proprietors and not the Gram Panchayat, and that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to cut these trees. On the complaint filed by the residents of the village, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab stayed the auction dated 9.4.2003, and called for the report from respondent No.3 i.e. the District Development and Panchayat Officer, SAS Nagar Mohali, about the legality of the auction, before expiry of 15 days fixed for payment of balance bid money. It was reported by the District Development and Panchayat Officer, SAS Nagar Mohali, that auction was held in accordance with the rules. In view of the report of the District Development and Panchayat Officer, SAS Nagar Mohali, the auction CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -3- ***** was upheld, by respondent No.2 and stay was vacated. The complainant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, represented to the Special Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat, who remanded the case to the Director with a direction to redecide the matter, after re-examination the facts. Till then, auction / cutting of the trees was stayed. On re-examination of the matter, upto the government level, it was held, that the auction was held according to the rules, therefore, the stay was vacated. After being unsuccessful, in their attempt to get the auction cancelled through authorities under the Act, the complainant /residents chose to file the civil suit. The suit was dismissed on 17.11.2006. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree was also dismissed on 1.4.2008. After the finalization of the judicial proceedings initiated by the residents of the village, the Gram Panchayat instead of permitting the petitioner to deposit balance payment, and curtting the trees, in its wisdom passed a resolution Annexure P-12 postponing the auction held on 9.4.2003. The resolution, on the face of it, is patently illegal, as concluded auction could have not been postponed. Under the garb of Annexure P-1, the petitioner was again restrained from cutting the trees. Even though, the petitioner has alternative remedy to challenge the resolution of the Gram panchayat, however, in view of CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -4- ***** the admitted fact, this Court does not feel it appropriate at this stage, to relegate the petitioner to alternative remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the action of the Gram Panchayat in postponing the auction on the following grounds :- 1. That the auction was held in exercise of statutory powers vested in the Gram Panchayat under Rule 69(6)(6A) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Rules, 1964, therefore, the lease / contract is a statutory contract, which can be enforced by invoking the writ jurisdiction. 2. Before postponing / cancelling the auction in favour of the petitioner, no notice was issued to him, nor opportunity of hearing was given him, though his civil rights were affected. 3. The action of the respondent Panchayat was arbitrary and contrary to decision taken by the authorities under the Act, thus hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Addl. A.G., Punjab, and the learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat, by contending, that the terms of the auction can not be implemented, as the petitioner had failed to pay the lease money, which he was liable to pay within 15 days. It would be too harsh, in case the petitioner is allowed to cut the trees, in pursuance to auction dated 9.4.2003, in CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -5- ***** spite of his failure to pay, the whole of the lease amount. On consideration, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute, that the auction was held, and the 1/4th of lease money was paid by the petitioner. It was on account of stay granted by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, Secretary and thereafter by the Civil Court, that the petitioner could not pay the balance amount. Even after the decision by the authorities under the Act, the residents of the village filed a civil suit. It was on account of pendency of the civil suit, that the respondents did not allow the petitioner to cut the trees in spite of his readiness to pay the balance payment. The petitioner showed his willingness to deposit the balance sale consideration. The petitioner is also right in contending, that the statutory contract entered into between the parties could not be cancelled, under the garb of postponement of the auction. This stand, on the face of it, is arbitrary and illegal, as there was no authority vested in the Gram Panchayat, to postpone the auction which stood concluded, but was not implemented for want of decision by the quashi judicial and the Civil Court, on the objections by the respondents The learned counsel for the petitioner was also right in contending, that before cancelling the resolution passed in his favour, the principles of natural justice, were required to be followed, as he had vested interest in the trees in pursuance to the deposit of initial CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -6- ***** amount, under which auction stood concluded. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that for want of money they had the right to postpone the auction, can not be sustained, as no fault can be attributed to the petitioner, in not depositing the money, in view of stay granted by the quashi judicial authorities under the Act, as well by the Civil Court, in view of the settled law, that no person can suffer for the fault of the Court. This writ petition is allowed, the impugned resolution is set side, and the petitioner is permitted to cut the trees auctioned to him on 9.4.2003. However, in view of the fact, that with the passage of time the prices must have increased, and any enhancement of lease amount is to be used for the development of the village, and with consent of petitioner it is ordered, that the lease money be increased to Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lac only), instead of Rs. 5,90,000/- (Rupees five lac and ninety thousand only), earlier fixed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that out of the auctioned trees, which were cut, were disposed off by the Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioner has given up his claim to the price of trees disposed off by the Gram Panchayat. The amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lac only) is inclusive of the amount already paid at the time of bid. The petitioner shall be entitled to cut the trees, only after deposit of whole of the price/ lease money i.e. Rs. 6,80,000/- (Rupees six lac and eighty thousand only) i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- CWP No. 16680 of 2009 -7- ***** minus 1,20,000/- paid at the time of auction. It is further made clear, that in case the petitioner fails to deposit the money of lease amount as assessed, within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the respondent Panchayat shall be entitled to cancel the auction, for non-payment of lease money, after notice to the petitioner. Writ allowed, but with no order as to costs. 19.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE