CWP NO. 8910 OF 2002. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 8910 of 2002. Date of Decision: 11th November, 2008. Kewal Krishan .Petitioner through Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 22nd January, 1997 [Annexure P-7] and dated 7th January, 2002 [Annexure P-14] passed by respondents No. 6 and 4 respectively. The land measuring 10 marlas [302 Sq. Yards] of village Khairpur and which fell within the municipal limits of Sirsa, was recorded as 'evacuee property' in the revenue record from the very inception. The Rehabilitation Department being custodian of the evacuee properties put the said piece of land to an open auction held on 7th November, 1990. The petitioner offered Rs.1,60,000/- and was the highest bidder. The auction was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 20th April, 1992. The petitioner then deposited the balance amount of Rs.1.20 lacs on 6th May, 1992. The petitioner's nightmare, however, did not come to an end. Meanwhile, the Municipal Council, Sirsa started claiming CWP NO. 8910 OF 2002. ::-2-:: that the subject land was earlier Shamlat deh, vested in the Gram Panchayat, Khairpur and on inclusion of the said area within the municipal limits, the land stood vested in the Municipal Council. Notwithstanding the alleged title dispute between the Rehabilitation Department and the Municipal Council, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, in purported exercise of his power which is not referable to any Rule or law, is claimed to have allotted the afore-said land to the 9th respondent, namely, the Sirsa District Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Sirsa. It is the conceded position that before the allotment, neither any advertisement was issued nor applications from other Societies invited. In other words, no transparent or fair criterion was followed while making the said allotment in a clandestine manner. It further appears that the Municipal Council challenged the mutation which was earlier sanctioned in favour of the Rehabilitation Department by the Assistant Collector, First Grade, before the Collector, who accepted the Municipal Council's appeal and directed sanctioning of mutation in favour of the Municipal Council, apparently to sanctify the allotment already made in favour of the 9th respondent. The petitioner who by that time had become absolute owner of the land preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Hisar Division. The Rehabilitation Department also filed a separate appeal. Both the appeals were allowed by the Commissioner. The 9th respondent, however, preferred a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner, who vide the impugned order dated 7th January, 2002 [Annexure P-14] has accepted the Revision Petition and directed that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Council. CWP NO. 8910 OF 2002. ::-3-:: The Financial Commissioner has categorically held that the respondent – Society was not competent to raise any claim over the disputed land, nevertheless, has passed the impugned order even when the Municipal Council never challenged the order of the Commissioner, Hisar Division. Aggrieved at the order of the Financial Commissioner that the petitioner – auction purchaser has preferred this writ petition. In response to the notice of motion, the State of Haryana through its Rehabilitation Department has filed the counter-affidavit, taking the following stand in Paras No. 2 to 9 thereof:- “2 to 9. That in reply to paras 2 to 9 of the petition, it is submitted that the land in question measuring 10 marlas [302 sq. yards] situated in Khairpur Urban Area within Municipal limits of Sirsa, being evacuee land belonging to Rehabilitation Department was auctioned by the Naib Tehsildar [Sales], Sirsa on 7.11.1990 under rule 90 of the Displaced Persons [Compensation and Rehabilitation] Rules, 1955 framed under the Displaced Persons [Compensation and Rehabilitation] Act, 1954. In this auction, petitioner Shri Kewal Krishan was recorded to be the highest bidder for Rs.1,60,000/- and he deposited Rs.40,000/- as earnest money at the close of bid. This auction was subject to approval of the competent authority, i.e., Chief Settlement Commissioner as required under Rule 90[10] of ibid Rules, 1955. At this stage, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana sought information from Naib Tehsildar [Sales], Sirsa regarding negotiation case of the Sirsa District Employees Cooperative House Building Ltd. Sirsa for transfer of the land in question to it. The case for the transfer of the land had been filed at Govt. level and a communication in this regard was sent to the Naib Tehsildar [Sales] Sirsa on CWP NO. 8910 OF 2002. ::-4-:: 1.8.1990. The Naib Tehsildar [Sales], Sirsa again submitted the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, vide order dated 20.4.1992 confirmed the auction. Balance auction money of Rs.1,20,000/- was recovered from the petitioner on 6.5.1992. Thereafter, petitioner approached the Naib Tehsildar [Sales], Sirsa for issuance of the conveyance deed. The matter was prolonged for the reasons mentioned in succeeding paras and ultimately the sale certificate was issued to the petitioner on 7.6.1999”. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of various orders on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner as also the order passed by the Collector, Sirsa [Annexures P-7 and P-14] are patently illegal and can not sustain. There is indeed no dispute that right from the very inception the subject property was shown as an 'evacuee property' which stood vested in the Custodian Department. No challenge to the ownership rights of the said Department was ever made either by the Gram Panchayat or its successor-in-interest, namely, the Municipal Council, Sirsa. The aforesaid land was sold by the Rehabilitation Department through a public auction. No steps were taken by the Municipal Council or the Gram Panchayat against the said auction also. Based upon the consistent entries in the revenue record and the fact that there was not even whisper against the title of the Rehabilitation Department that the petitioner participated in the auction and turned out to be the highest bidder who paid the entire bid amount within the stipulated period. The auction was then confirmed and the sale certificate which is a Title-Deed, has also CWP NO. 8910 OF 2002. ::-5-:: been issued in his favour. The petitioner would, undoubtedly, fall well within the expression of 'bona-fide purchaser'. The petitioner's title is, however, sought to be jeoparsided on the pretext of change of mutation even though mutation does not confer any title. The order passed by the Collector in this regard was nothing but a self-serving device to legitimize his own action of allotment of the subject land to the 9th respondent without any authority of law. In the absence of any challenge to the title of the Rehabilitation Department, the Municipal Council or for that matter the 9th respondent, could not claim any right or interest in the subject property merely by getting the same mutated in favour of the Municipal Council. The manner in which the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa made the allotment in favour of the respondent Society can not be over-looked for the reason that the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to allot the subject land in favour of the Society despite disapproval conveyed by the State Government vide its order dated 1st August, 1990. But for some personal vested interest, the Deputy Commissioner could not have taken a step which was per-se against the public interest and meant to cause loss to the State exchequer. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 22nd January, 1997 [Annexure P-7] and dated 7th January, 2002 [Annexure P-14] are hereby quashed with costs of Rs.10,000/- which shall be recoverable from respondent No. 9 Society only who appears to be the sole beneficiary of the illegally secured allotment. November 11, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE