C.W.P. No.5593 of 1984 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P. No.5593 of 1984 Date of decision : 13.7.2010 Yoginder Pal -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr.Ritesh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. B.R.Rana, Advocate for Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate, for respondent No.4 Ms.Ritu Bahri, Senior DAG, Haryana --- ORDER:- 1. This petition seeks quashing of orders, Annexures P 1 to P6 i.e. orders of re-auction of the plot of which the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held on 17.9.1978 for Rs.6300/-and re- auction held on 10.1.1979 for Rs.7000/-in favour of respondent No.4. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the plot in question was put to auction under Rule 90 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. The said auction was set aside and order of re-auction was passed on 20.12.1978 vide Annexure P 3 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Chandigarh. The said order does not contain any reasons. According to the petitioner, no opportunity of being heard was given to him before passing of the said order. After C.W.P. No.5593 of 1984 -2- the said order, the plot was re-auctioned on 20.12.1978. Since the petitioner was not aware of the order of re-auction and of the re- auction proceedings, he did not participate and on hearing about the re-auction held on 10.1.1979, he filed objections on 20.1.1979. The said objection petition was dismissed vide order dated 25.1.1979, Annexure P 1, without dealing with the objections of the petitioner, with the observation that there was no justification to interfere with the re-auction. It was noticed that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.2495/-as challenge money and had also offerred Rs.200/-more than the auction bid. The said order was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner on 28.8.1984 vide Annexure P 3. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.10.1984, after which the petitioner filed another petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, stating that the writ petition was withdrawn to move the said authority and reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Jagnandan Singh and others V. The Union of India, 1975 PLJ 129 holding that for passing the order for re-auction, reasons had to be given. The said petition was again dismissed vide Annexure P 6, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Contention in the writ petition is that order of re-auction having been passed without any reasons and without giving hearing to the petitioner, re-auction proceedings were not justified and the proceedings were not conducted according to rules. It is submitted that objection against the re-auction was wrongly rejected and the bid C.W.P. No.5593 of 1984 -3- in favour of the private respondent was wrongly confirmed. The stand on behalf of the official respondent is that bid in favour of the petitioner was only for Rs.6300/-and he was the sole bidder. There being no contest, order of re-auction was justified. Re-auction did not suffer from any irregularity and was rightly confirmed and the objection of the petitioner has no merit. The order rejecting objection of the petitioner was duly affirmed by the Revisional Authority and writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, second petition was not competent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Question for consideration is whether order of re-auction was illegal and whether re-auction suffered from any illegality? 6. It is undisputed that the petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs.6300/-. Even though no reasons were given there could be justification for re-auction as pleaded in the written statement. It is, however, not clear whether the petitioner had any notice of the re- auction proceedings. The second auction took place on 10.1.1979 and the petitioner filed objection within 10 days i.e. on 21.1.1979 and also deposited the challenge amount of Rs.2495/-. He also offered higher bid. It could not, thus, be held that the petitioner was not serious in participating in the second auction, if he had the notice. In absence of evidence of proper publication, auction held on 10.1.1979 may be liable to set aside. However, no stay was granted by this Court and the contesting respondent was given possession in the year 1979 and he has sold the property. In these circumstances, instead of C.W.P. No.5593 of 1984 -4- remanding the matter or ordering further auction, it will be fair that the matter is settled between the parties. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has fairly stated that the petitioner will be paid compensation of Rs. One lakh within six months. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts this proposal. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of settlement of learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No.4 will be liable to pay a sum of Rs. one lakh to the petitioner within six months. If the said amount is not paid within the said period, the amount will carry interest @ 12% P.A. for the period after expiry of six months. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 13th July, 2010 akm