CWP No.4679 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4679 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Sher Singh son of Shri Sampuran Singh, resident of village and Post Office, BOH, Tehsil and District Ambalaipur Julana. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana through the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner Haryana, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for Mr. C.L. Ghai, Advocate, for respondent No.4 ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the action of the Settlement Officer setting aside an auction conducted on 30.07.1987 under the Disposal of Surplus Rural Evacuee Agricultural Land Rules. The petitioner claims that a publication for auction of the property had been made on 03.07.1987 and auction was held on 30.07.1987. The relevant rules prescribed a period of 15 days to allow the application and accordingly the auction was fixed as per the rules. The property had been purchased by him CWP No.4679 of 1988 (O&M) [2] at the highest bid of `5,600/- against the reserved price of `5,200/-. This was confirmed by the Settlement Officer on 14.09.1987. A sale certificate had been issued and the property delivered to the petitioner on 25.09.1987. 2. Subsequent to the issuance of sale certificate after confirmation, an objection appears to have come from the 4th respondent, who claimed that the auction was not as per rules and sought for setting aside the sale and also offered to pay `14,000/- for the property. The Settlement Officer passed the impugned order holding that the property had not been properly described with reference to the khasra numbers and had been also a cutting of the date, as regards the publication date. The offer of the 4th respondent to pay `14,000/- as against the offer accepted namely an amount of `5,600/- itself, according to the Settlement Officer, an indication that the property had not been sold for the proper price. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that after the confirmation of the auction by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14.09.1987, the Settlement Officer had no right to pass a fresh order on an objection coming more than 3 months and 18 days from the date when the auction was confirmed. The learned counsel would refer me to the rules that details the power of review and revision. Rule 10 allows for review of the order passed by Settlement Commissioner/Settlement Officer (Sales), Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar. This power of review allows clerical, arithmetical or other material mistake or any other patent error. We are not considering any issue of correction of an error and, therefore, Rule 10 does not apply. Rule 11 deals the power of revision, which reads as under: “11. Powers of Revision The Settlement Commissioner may call for the CWP No.4679 of 1988 (O&M) [3] record of any case pending before or decided by a Subordinate Officer and pass such order as may be deemed fit including the resumption of property provided that the party effected by the proposed order shall be given an opportunity of being heard.” 4. This case has been dealt with by the Settlement Officer in exercise of his power or revision. This order gives out amongst the other reasons that the date of publication had been corrected. The correction is not such a correction, which enlarges the period necessary from the date when the publication must be effected to the date when the auction was actually held. The correction is said to be in respect of the date of auction viz from 01.07.1987 as it originally stood and subsequently corrected as 30.07.1987. It is not seen from the impugned order whether the Settlement Officer had elicited any information from his subordinates about how the correction had come about. Similarly, the observation made by the Settlement Officer that there had been no proper description of property as per the relevant rules, must be seen in the context of the particular property, which had been set out through the proclamation. The nature in description has been given as agricultural land plot No.S/1 and the area of the plot has been given as 260 sq. yds. The proclamation refers to the details of five persons as having participated in the auction and the number of persons present at the auction was reported to be 20. When the petitioner challenges the order and says that there was no ground as detailed in the impugned order, one would expect that the State would support its own order with reference to the files, I cannot assume what the order finds as defects in auction as really available, when a challenge is made in the writ petition. I have not benefit of knowing how this CWP No.4679 of 1988 (O&M) [4] correction could have been made or when it could have been made when the order itself does not elicit such an information. Same way, it is not possible for me to take merely an objection that the property was not properly described when I find that the extent has been mentioned and the field number is also given. The absence of reference to khasra numbers, I would not think to be serious, unless there was a definite material to show that there was any misleading information which prevented any member of the public from participating. The mere contentions raised by the State cannot be taken as a ground for upholding the order, where a serious challenge is brought against the correctness of the order and the State is not prepared to support its own order with the relevant to the file. I have only to observe that the petitioner was justified in complaining that the so called reasons taken by the Settlement Officer had not been substantiated to set aside the sale, which was confirmed by the Assistant Settlement Officer. 5. The 4th respondent at whose objection the auction is set aside vehemently contends through counsel that the auction was vitiated but the oral objections are substantiated. He looks askance at the inability of the State to support his defence with relevant materials. He also urges that, after all, he does not take any personal benefit but the property is only required to be put up for auction. That is the precise objection and prejudice for the petitioner. He has parted with consideration and is in possession for the last nearly 3 decades. 6. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. NOVEMBER 07, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE