K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THERE is no representation for the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents are present. This case has already at one time been disposed of on merits on 09.02.2005. Although the petitioner was absent and the Court decided the case on the basis of facts brought through records and on the basis of submissions of the counsel for the respondent, it appears that the petitioner had moved an application for rehearing of the case and by an order dated 22.08.2005, the case was recalled. However, subsequently the writ petition was again dismissed on 09.11.2010 and it was again restored by the order passed on 18.10.2011. The case is now listed for final hearing but there is no representation for the petitioner. The case is identified as one of the oldest cases on file of this Court and there is an administrative decision for posting it specially before this Court for expeditious disposal. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records and with the assistance of the counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner is prosecuting this case on a second round after his earlier attempt has come to no fruitful results. The facts are that the petitioner had been declared as the highest bidder in a reserved auction held on 19.07.1968. He had paid 10% of the auction money as per the terms of the auction and the balance was to be paid in specified installments. The petitioner, however, committed a default that resulted in an order of forfeiture of the earnest money that he had paid and cancellation of the sale ordered in his favour. This order forfeiting the petitioner's right passed on 07.03.1973 was the subject of proceedings before competent authorities that finally resulted in an order of the revisional authority upholding the cancellation. This was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.236 of 1983 when the Court disposed of the writ petition on 13.05.1983 allowing the petitioner a further opportunity of making the balance of payment within 10 days. This direction was really by way of grace without reference to the contractual terms. The petitioner did not avail the benefit and again committed default in making the payment. The petitioner had filed an application for review and for extension of time for making the payment but the same was dismissed by this Court. After failing in all his attempts, he has again applied before the authority for receipt of sale consideration. The petitioner claimed to have made the payments subsequently and sought for issuance of a sale certificate which was denied by the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation -cum -Settlement Commissioner, Haryana. The impugned order records the fact that the original order passed on 26.03.1979 dismissing his claim revived, especially when the direction of the High Court in CWP No.236 of 1983 was not complied with. There is no vested right for the petitioner to claim the property of what he lost by his own default. I cannot find any ground to accommodate the plea of the petitioner for consideration for issuance of the sale certificate. The subsequent offer of payment or actual payment cannot alter the situation when the petitioner was committed default that resulted in the cancellation of sale. The writ petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/ -for vexing the respondent with several petitions but seldom in a position to argue the case on merits. The State authorities shall be at liberty to finalize the further proceedings for considering the right of the 4th respondent pursuant to the allotment said to have been made in favour of the 4th respondents.;