C.W.P No. 3563 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 3563 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : September 30, 2010 Jawahar Lal, ...... Petitioner v. State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.N.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.K.Gupta, Addl. A.G Haryana for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (O&M) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.12.1986 (Annexure P-6) whereby the transfer of 1.12 standard acres of land (by way of auction) in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. After the exercise under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 was over, the remaining land was transferred to the respective States concerned in a package deal by the Central Government. In 1962, the erstwhile State of Punjab made a scheme whereby evacuee land could be disposed of by the restricted auction in C.W.P No. 3563 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: which only Harijans could participate, provided that no Harijan could purchase more than 5 standard acres of land. The petitioner purchased 172 kanals 17 marlas of land in three auctions. The specific averment in the writ petition is that at the time of auction, the land was represented as having 2.5 annas valuation. Undisputedly, as per that valuation the land purchased by the petitioner was less than 5 standard acres. After about 15 years of the last auction, a reference was made by the Tehsildar (Sales) that the valuation of the land sold to the petitioner was 5 annas per ordinary acre and hence he had actually been transferred 6.12 standard acres of land. It is thereafter that the transfer was cancelled. Though many arguments have been raised by counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the clinching argument would be the unrebutted averment of the petitioner that at the time of auction, the respondents had themselves evaluated the land @ 2.5 annas per acre. Even during the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that he could not deny the assertion that at the time of auction, the land was evaluated @ 2.5 annas per acre. It is, however, his argument that a wrong valuation could not give right to a purchaser in a restricted auction to purchase more land than was permissible. In my opinion, this argument cannot be allowed to prevail. There is no allegation that there is maleficence on the part of the petitioner. Once the respondents are not in a position to deny their own valuation at the time of auction, they cannot now turn around after 15 years, and after huge improvements have been made by the petitioner in the land in dispute, to say that the auction purchase was more than the permissible area. Apart from this, it is also extremely doubtful if the respondents can take recourse to the specious alternative of a cancellation order once the C.W.P No. 3563 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: rights had been crystalized by way of auction and transfer. In this view of the matter, the impugned order has to be quashed. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 17.12.1986 (Annexure P-6) is set aside. No order as to costs. As the main petition has since been allowed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 30, 2010. JUDGE `kk'