- (1.) By this judgment, both the aforesaid writ petitions shall stand decided as the impugned orders dated 19.02.1990, 27.01.1992 and 12.10.1993 are common.
(2.) However, for facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 4976 of 1994.
(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the agricultural evacuee land measuring 55 kanals 15 marlas comprised in khasra No. 29//11, 18, 19, 20,21, 22 and 23, situated in village Khirki Manekpur, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala was auctioned by respondent No. 3 under the 'State Rules' amongst harijans on 04.09.1984, in which, the petitioner emerged as the higher bidder for Rs.28,000/- and he deposited Rs.3500/-. As per the conditions, the balance amount of bid money was to be deposited in fifteen half yearly equal installments being the restricted auction amongst harijans and as per the instructions of the State Government issued vide memo No. 7984-94 dated 15.10.1970, the installments were to be started after two harvests from the date of delivery of actual physical possession. Respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 19.02.1990 forfeiting the amount and also resuming the land on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the overdue installments. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 again put the land to auction on 26.10.1990 in which, one Smt. Chander Kanta was recorded as the highest bidder for Rs.80,000/- but the auction in her favour was not confirmed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 19.02.1990. The same was allowed vide order dated 29.03.1991. However, a condition was imposed that the petitioner will purchase the land for Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.28,000/-. The petitioner filed a revision petition before respondent No. 1 against the order dated 29.03.1991, challenging only the part of the order dated 29.03.1991 whereby respondent No. 2 imposed a condition that the petitioner will purchase the land for Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.28,000/-. The revision petition was disposed of and the case was remanded to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 27.01.1992 observing that there was no occasion to impose a condition upon the petitioner to pay the higher amount of Rs.80,000/- and that either the S.O (S) should have accepted the appeal of the petitioner or should have dismissed the same and should have confirmed the auction in favour of Smt. Chander Kanta if it was in order. After the remand order by respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 decided the appeal vide order dated 21.12.1992 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No. 1 challenging the order dated 19.02.1990, 21.12.1992, while Chander Kanta (successful bidder in reauction on 26.10.1990) filed Revision Petition against the order dated 21.12.1992 passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional Settlement Officer (Sales) Karnal before respondent No. 1 i.e. Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) cum- Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana. Respondent No. 1 i.e. Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation) cum Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Department, Haryana upheld the order under challenge vide order dated 12.10.1993 (P6). As regards Chander Kanta also it was held that since it was discovered that this land has been frozen by the forest department for afforestation and is in their possession, the possession of it cannot be given to Smt. Chander Kanta during the subsistence of a lease of the Forest Department. Since possession cannot be given, conveyance deed cannot be given.;