CWP No. 13160 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13160 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 28.09.2011 *** Krishan .. Petitioner VS. Collector, Sonepat & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shalender Mohan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant writ petition, a challenge has been laid by the petitioner to the order dated 6.8.2008 (Annexure P-5) passed by Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.1) by dint of which order dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat (respondent No.2), quashing the auction dated 24.4.2007 in favour of respondent No.4, has been set aside. The facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat, Dubheta (respondent No.3) put on auction the water pond of the village to respondent No.4. However, the petitioner herein protested the said action of respondent No.3 before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat-respondent No.2, inter alia, on the ground that prior to the said auction no public notice/ proclamation was done; the water pond was leased out in favour of CWP No. 13160 of 2009 2 respondent No.4 in a clandestine manner that too on throw away prices. The matter was heard at length by respondent No.2 and on the basis of evidence adduced before it, vide order dated 25.2.2008 the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and Gram Panchayat was directed to put the pond in open auction for a period of three to five years and the minimum price thereof was fixed as Rs.70,000/- per annum. Dis-satisfied with the same, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before respondent No.1, who set aside the order dated 25.2.2008. Aggrieved with the same, instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the paper-book carefully. In the written statements filed separately by respondent No.3 and 4, it has been averred that the auction was done in a right manner that too in the presence of prominent and respectable of the village. The perusal of order dated 25.2.2008 passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sonepat, it is evident that, on the strength of the evidence on record, it came to the conclusion that no publication was done in respect of the impugned auction in favour of respondent No.4 that too against the less amount of Rs.35,000/- as bid amount, whereas the petitioner agreed and later deposited an amount of Rs.45,000/- and further undertook to deposit Rs.25,000/- more as bid amount for the same water pond, i.e. to say Rs.70,000/- annually. Apart from that, collusion between the Gram Panchayat and others and respondent No.4 was also found. It was also found that the action of Gram Panchayat in auctioning the pond for ten years on such a meager amount would amount to causing loss to Gram Panchayat. It has also come on record that the bid amount was deposited by respondent No.4 for one year and finding that the said period is going to lapse, respondent No.2 directed him to take out the fishes from the water pond within one month. However, the Collector set aside the order of AC Ist Grade only on the ground that no amount of compensation was ordered to be paid. In our considered view the Collector has fallen in error of law because for this recourse he may have remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade or to grant liberty to respondent No.4 to initiate appropriate proceedings for grant of compensation, but only on this score a detailed and well reasoned order passed by AC Ist Grade ought not to have CWP No. 13160 of 2009 3 been set aside. The continuation of respondent No.4 as auction purchaser of the water pond, as rightly observed by the AC Ist Grade, is causing financial loss to the Gram panchayat and hence, it was directed to conduct the auction for a period between three to five years in one time on a minimum amount of Rs.70,000/- per annum. It appears that Collector-respondent No.1, in a haste, set aside the order of AC Ist Grade-respondent No.2, which in our opinion is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the discussion above, the instant writ petition is allowed, thereby setting aside the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Collector-respondent No.1 and restoring that of AC Ist Grade dated 25.2.2008. However, respondent No.4 shall be at liberty to ask for compensation from the Gram Panchayat, in accordance with law. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE September 28,2011 Jiten