Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) ON June 7, 1971 the Land Management Committee passed a resolution allotting plot No. 99 (area .38 acres) to Sher Singh, pre decessor of respondents Nos. 1 to 7, Dharam Singh respondent No. 8 made a complaint to the Chief Minister that the allotment has not been in accordance with the rules. The Chief Minister directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to look into the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a notice initiating proceedings under Rule 115-N of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Rules- Dharm Singh contested the proceedings. He inter alia pleaded that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no juris diction to examine the validity of the allotment in his favour. Nonetheless, the Sub-Divisional Officer continued with the proceedings. Thereupon Sher Singh instituted a writ petition in this Court
(2.) A learned single Judge held that Rule 115-N applies to cancellation of an order of allotment which is based on a public auction as provided by Rule 115-1. It does not authorise the As sistant Collector to cancel the allotment orders based upon a resolution passed by the Land Management Committee. On this view the writ petition was allowed and the proceedings under Rule 115-N were quashed. Aggrieved, the Sub-Divi sional Officer and the State have come up in appeal. Rule 115-L authorises the Land Management Committee to allot abadi sites to various categories of persons mentioned in that rule. The allotment can either be by a public auction, or In other mentioned categories of cases, by a mere resolution. So. abadi sites vested in the Gaon Samaj can be allotted by two different modes. Rule 115-N empowers the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division to cancel the allotment order. It provides:- "115-N (1) The Assistant Collector In charge of the Sub-Division shall, on the application of any person interested, filed within three months of the date of auc tion and may at any time on his own motion cancel for reasons to be record ed in writing, the allotment order on one or more of the following grounds : (1) The bid accepted was inadequate? (ii) The auction was collusive or un fair; (iii) The auction proceedings were not followed in accordance with the rules; (iv) Any other ground. (2) No order under sub-rule (1) shall be passed unless the allottee has been given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. (3) The decision of the Assistant Col lector in charge of the Sub-Division shall be. final." Under this rule any person interested can make an application for cancellation of the allotment order. The Assistant Collector can suo motu take similar action. In both cases the power is to cancel the allotment order. As already seen, the order of allotment can be pass ed either as a result of auction, or a re solution. Ex. facie the power of cancel lation has not. in the opening part of the rule, been confined to an allotment order based on an auction only.
(3.) IT was urged that since the rule authorises a person interested to make an application within three months of the date of auction, it is implicit that a person interested cannot apply for can cellation of an order of allotment based upon a resolution. We are unable to agree. The rule as it stands provides for a period of limitation for an application to cancel the allotment order based upon an auction. If the commencement of the period of limitation is the date of auc tion, then on the plain language of the rule there is no prescribed period of limitation for an application to cancel -the allotment order based on a resolution. The period of limitation of three month can apply to the latter class of cases if the term 'date of auction' is in that cate gory of cases interpreted to refer to the date of the resolution, or the date of the order of allotment based on a resolution. In any way, it cannot be urged that the rule does not authorise a person interest ed to apply for the cancellation of an order of allotment in cases where it is based on a resolution.;