L.P.A. No. 1852 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1852 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 5.10.2011 Baljinder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Gambhir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present:- Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana. **** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J(Oral). C.M. No. 5051-LPA of 2011 This is an application for seeking exemption from filing certified copy of order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure A-1). For the reasons stated in the application, the applicant is exempted from filing certified copy of order dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure A- 1). C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No. 5052-LPA of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Order Annexure A-1 is taken on record. LPA No. 1852 of 2010 This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court L.P.A. No. 1852 of 2010 2 whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 challenging the order of confirmation of auction dated 14.12.2006 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Ambala and the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Commissioner dismissing the revision of the appellants (legal heirs of respondent No. 6). Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 put additional condition on the appellants that the appellants will pay a sum of Rs. 2 lacs per acre for the land, which is about 9 acres, which was purchased by the appellants in the auction and if the appellants deposit the said amount within a period of two months' from the date of decision the sale made in their favour will stand confirmed/approved. It was further stated that in case the appellants fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time if not extended, the authorities will be entitled to cancel the auction in their favour. On April 27, 2011, during the course of arguments, the following order was passed by this Court. “At the time of arguments, counsel for the appellants states that he does not wish to lay challenge to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on March 30, 2009, on merits. However, he states that vide the impugned order, the appellants were granted two months' time to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre within two months from the date when judgment was passed on March 30, 2009. It appears that thereafter the appellants filed an application for review, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge on May 25, 2009. Then this appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Counsel for the appellant states that the time to deposit the amount, be extended. We feel that because the time schedule has been fixed by the learned Single Judge, it will be appropriate for the L.P.A. No. 1852 of 2010 3 appellants to move an application seeking extension of time before the learned Single Judge. On request, adjourned to May 30, 2011. In the meantime, the appellants, if advised, may move an application before the learned Single Judge, for extension of time.” In pursuance of the said order the appellants moved an application before learned Single Judge, but the said application was dismissed on 30.5.2011 while observing that no case for extension of time to deposit the amount is made out. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that after receiving the certified copy, the appellants placed on record the said order and thereafter delay in filing the appeal was condoned and notice of motion was issued for 14.3.2011. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the appellants had challenged the order, therefore, they have not deposited the said amount as ordered by learned Single Judge. Now since the appellants are not contesting the said order, the appellants may be given one month time to deposit the amount as ordered by the learned Single Judge, from today. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we found that in the facts and circumstances of the case the prayer made by the appellants is reasonable. The appellants belong to weaker section. They have got the land in restricted auction in which respondents No. 2 and 3 were not eligible to participate, therefore, they cannot challenge the said auction. It has also been brought to our notice that Letters Patent Appeal No. 388 of 2009 filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been dismissed on 29.7.2009. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances of the case we L.P.A. No. 1852 of 2010 4 found the prayer made by the appellants reasonable. Thus, the appellants are given 1 ½ months' time from today to deposit the amount as ordered by learned Single Judge. In case the said amount is not deposited the consequences will be the same as ordered by learned Single Judge. The appeal stands disposed of. Copy of the order be given on payment. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 5.10.2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) reema JUDGE