HEMANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the communication dated 13.02.1987, Annexure P-3, whereby the petitioner was informed that the property, of which the petitioner was the highest bidder, shall be re-auctioned on 11.03.1987.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that since the petitioner was the highest bidder in an auction conducted on 20.03.1984 and having deposited the earnest money, the decision to put the property to sale is arbitrary and illegal and that the petitioner has vested right for confirmation of sale in his favour. The petitioner challenged the said communication before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner passed an order dated 09.03.1987, Annexure P-4. It was found that the petition is not maintainable on the basis of the notice issued to the petitioner. Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition, wherein it stated that the land bearing Khasra No. 62//1 to 5, measuring 40 Kanals 13 Marlas was put to auction by the Tehsildar (Sales) on 20.03.1984. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder having given a bid of Rs. 18,000/-. A sum of Rs. 2250/- was deposited as earnest money on the same date with the Tehsildar (Sales). The remaining amount was to be deposited after confirmation of sale was communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction. The petitioner alleges that he is in cultivating possession of the said property in pursuance of the auction held. One Laxmi Chand filed a miscellaneous petition challenging the auction in favour of the petitioner. The confirmation of auction was initially stayed, but the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed as withdrawn and another petition was filed under Rule 11 of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Properties. Such petition was dismissed on 14.08.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed of the order dated 13.02.1987. In the original written statement, an averment was made that the Additional Settlement Officer declined confirmation of auction in favour of the petitioner on 08.02.1987 and that vide order dated 05.01.1987, the Additional Settlement Officer (Sales) did not approve/confirm the same as the highest bid of the petitioner was much below the reserve price. Such decision was allegedly conveyed to the petitioner on 22.01.1987. It was also stated that the Rehabilitation Department has never authorized the petitioner to take possession of the land in dispute and that the possession of the petitioner is unauthorized, illegal and that of a trespasser. It is also pointed out that previously the land in question was auctioned in favour of Laxmi Chand, but since he failed to deposit the balance amount in installment, therefore, the earnest money was forfeited. The revision petition filed by Laxmi Chand was dismissed on 14.08.1986 and thereafter, the issue regarding confirmation of auction in favour of the petitioner was considered and declined as mentioned above.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , an application was filed by the State under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed. With the amended written statement, the State has relied upon instructions dated 29.12.1981 (Annexure R-3), wherein the manner of fixation of reserve price of rural evacuee land and urban evacuee property was communicated. It is explained in the written statement that in terms of the said policy, the reserve price of the property auctioned, in which the petitioner was the highest bidder, comes to Rs. 28,750/-. Therefore, the decision not to confirm the sale being much less than the reserve price fixed, cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary.;