In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.388 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 Gambhir Singh and another ....Appellants. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants for impugning the determination rendered by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 30.3.2009, while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No.6613 of 2008, is that this Court was not justified in accepting the claim advanced on behalf of respondent No.6, who accepted to deposit Rs.2 lacs per acre for the land in question as against the offer of Rs.4 lacs per acre at the hands of the appellants. We have examined the reasons recorded on the instant submission at the hands of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 30.3.2009, which are being extracted hereunder: - “This is not an auction being conducted. Respondent No.6 has an order in his favour. He has deposited the entire amount. Because of delay on his part, he is being asked to pay an additional amount which is substantial. He could have got this land just for Rs.50,000/- approximately. He is suffering because of stay obtained by the petitioners and for not being vigilant to protect his rights and interest. It would not be fair to put him to more stringent terms. It appears that the petitioners are now raising bid to upset the auction. Accordingly, the stand of respondent No.6 is considered just and reasonable. In case, respondent No.6 deposits the amount as agreed before this Court within a period of two months from today, the sale in his favour shall stand confirmed and the present writ petition shall stand dismissed. In case, respondent No.6 fails to deposit this amount within the stipulated time and the time is not extended, the authorities will be entitled to cancel the auction, which is standing in favour of respondent No.6. The petitioners would then be entitled to seek allotment of this land in terms of rule position, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law but not at the rate lesser than the offer before the Court.” We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in accepting the claim of respondent No.6 (in the instant Letters Patents Appeal) over and above the claim of the appellants. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( S.D. Anand ) Judge 29.07.2009 sk.