1 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8118/2009 Chattar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 10th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr.R.S.D.Rajpurohit,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition against the auction notice dated 30.07.2009 (Annex.7). On 16.06.2009, the Tehsildar, Bali issued notice (Annex.1) towards annual auction of 37 bighas and 6 biswas of agricultural land comprised in Khasras Nos. 29,31,32 & 33 at village Malari in his capacity as the Receiver over the said land. The case of the petitioner is that he participated in the auction held on 29.06.2009 pursuant to the said notice; the final highest bid was knocked in his favour at Rs.26,100/-; and he deposited ¼th amount thereof immediately. According to the petitioner, on 03.07.2009, the Tehsildar, Bali addressed a communication to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali (SDO) for confirming the bid so received; however the SDO in his note dated 27.07.2009 sought the information specifically about the 2 bids received during the last three years and as to whether the present bid was lower than the average of the bids of last three years. The petitioner has stated the grievance that the Revenue Branch, instead of supplying the requisite information, proceeded to state that the bid received for the current year was lower than that received for the previous year; and, for such an incomplete report, the SDO proceeded to pass an order dated 28.07.2009 for auction afresh. Seeking to question the proceedings so adopted for auction afresh, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had been taking the land in question for cultivation for last so many years and this year too, after acceptance of his bid as the highest, he had deposited ¼th amount and then proceeded to make preparations for cultivation of the land in question at the asking of the authority concerned. In the given circumstances, it is contended, there was no justification that the SDO did not accept the bid of the petitioner and ordered re-auction. It is also suggested during the course of submissions that the bid was to be accepted by the Tehsildar alone and rather the SDO made the order without jurisdiction. The submissions remain bereft of merit and do not make out a case for interference. 3 The submission as made about want of authority with Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali has only been noticed to be rejected. Admitted position it is that the Tehsildar concerned is dealing with the land in question as a Receiver appointed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali in Revenue Misc. Case No.4/1976. The Court concerned definitely has the jurisdiction to confirm or refuse to confirm the bid or to pass any appropriate order for the purpose of dealing with the land in question. Even if the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali had asked in his note dated 27.07.2009 the information about the average bids for last three years but when came to know about the fact that the bid received for the current year is lesser than that received for the previous year, he cannot be faulted in ordering re-auction. It is noticed that for the previous year, the bid had been given by the petitioner himself at Rs.30,020/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand & Twenty). In the circumstances, in order to avoid loss, whether to the Revenue or to the parties to the litigation, if the Sub- Divisional Officer has chosen to put the matter for fresh auction, the exercise remains unexceptionable. Though it has been suggested in the writ petition as if the document (Annex.5) was a letter proposed to be issued by 4 the SDO, the said document does not inspire confidence for the same does not bear any signatures. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the last attempted to submit that in case of fresh auction, the respondents ought to be put to terms to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him. Such submission has only been noticed but does not require a final pronouncement by this Court for the reason that it entails specific enquiry into the fact about loss, if any, suffered by the petitioner; and such an enquiry into the facts is, ordinarily, not to be made in the writ jurisdiction of this Court; and there is no reason to take up such an enquiry into the facts in this petition. So far the proposition of re-auction is concerned, there does not appear any reason to interfere. This writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni