- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1954 (for short, 'the 1954 Act'). The orders came to be passed on a challenge made by the petitioner to an auction held on 07.01.1982 in favour of one Med Khan. He had sought for the sale to be set aside on the ground that the alleged auction referred to a property as bearing EP-345 and which had also also described the property as falling within khasra No.31/30 (1-0) being half share, namely, 15 marlas which had been auctioned in the name of Om Parkash for Rs.8,700/-. The Chief Settlement Officer held that the auction held on 07.01.1982 had brought about a confusion with reference to two different items of properties, one describing the property as falling within khasra numbers 31/30 and yet another property as house bearing No.EP-345. In the manner of challenge, the petitioner's contention was that he had already purchased the property at an auction held on 26.06.1979 and he had also paid an earnest of Rs.1,250/- but the balance was not called upon to be paid by him. On the other hand, the petitioner had been informed that warrant of possession had been issued in his favour by an intimation from the Tehsildar on 04.09.1979 and when he attended the office for depositing the balance, the Tehsildar was not available and the amount could not be deposited. It was alleged in the appeal challenging the auction held on 07.01.1982 that the petitioner went to office of the Tehsildar (Sales) again on 09.11.1979 and again petitioned to the Tehsildar (Sales) at Camp Nuh on 29.11.1979.
(2.) From the facts brought through the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in appeal, it is revealed that the petitioner had not participated in the auction held on 07.01.1982 but he was interested in assailing the auction by pointing out that he had been already declared to be the auction purchaser on 26.06.1979 and there could not have been a fresh auction of the property when he had been already declared as the purchaser. The Chief Settlement Officer held that the petitioner had no justifiable reason to challenge the auction because the petitioner had not paid the full amount in respect of the property. Against this decision, the petitioner had filed a revision to the Financial Commissioner, who found the objections of the petitioner to be tenable and he, therefore, set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and remanded the matter with the direction that he should visit the spot and decided the case on merits. When the matter was taken up by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on remand, he went on to hold that the petitioner had not challenged the attempt of fresh re-auction held by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 30.08.1979 and he was, therefore, not competent to urge that the auction already held in his favour must be confirmed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, however, found that the auction held on 07.01.1982 was required to be set aside since the auction brought about a confusion with reference to the identity of the property itself and, therefore, directed a fresh auction to be held while at the same time directing that the amount which had been paid by the petitioner to be refunded to him. This was again challenged before the Financial Commissioner, who confirmed the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 13.05.1987. It is this order that comes to be finally challenged through this writ petition.
(3.) If the case were to deal with the situation of the petitioner assailing the auction held on 07.01.1982, it cannot be done by discarding what the grounds of challenge were to this auction. A mere setting aside of the auction dated 07.01.1982 cannot provide to the petitioner a redressal, for, the impugned order also set aside the auction held in favour of the petitioner in 1979. The contention again was that the sale already held on 26.06.1979 cannot be annulled by a specious plea that the sale had not been confirmed by the Settlement Commissioner. The Rules regarding the sale and the manner by which a sale is concluded at a public auction is governed by Rule 90 of the Rules of 1955. Rule 9(8) allows for the sale to be concluded at an auction provisionally on payment of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of the bid and in default of such a deposit, the property would be resold. The resale even without going for a confirmation arises only in circumstances where 20% of the amount is not deposited. It is not denied that the petitioner had deposited 20% of the amount on 26.06.1979 when his bid at Rs.5,000/- was accepted. Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 are important to understand the various stages in the conclusion of the sale. Rules 9, 10, 11 and 12 are reproduced:- "(9)(B). Where the highest bidder, whose bid had been provisionally accepted, resiles from the bid before its approval is communicated to him, 5 per cent of the amount deposited by him under sub-rule (8) shall be forfeited to Government to defray incidental expenses incurred on the auction and the likely loss to Government. (10) The bid in respect of which the initial deposit has been accepted shall be subject to the approval of the Settlement Commissioner or an officer appointed by him for the purpose; Provided that no bid shall be approved until after the expiry of a period of seven days of the auction. (11) Intimation of the approval of the bid or its rejection shall be given to the highest bidder (hereinafter referred to as auction purchaser) by registered post acknowledgment due and the auction purchaser shall where the bid has been accepted be required within fifteen days of the receipt of such intimation to send by the registered post acknowledgment due or to produce before the Settlement Commissioner or any other officer appointed by him for the purpose a treasury challan in respect of the deposit of the balance of the purchase money; Provided that the Settlement Commissioner or other officer appointed by him in this behalf may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the aforesaid period of fifteen days by such period not exceeding fifteen days as the Settlement Commissioner or such other officer may think fit. Provided further that the period extended under the preceding proviso may further be extended (without any limit of time) by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. (12) The balance of the purchase money may, subject to the other provisions of these rules be adjusted against the compensation payable to the auction purchaser in respect of any verified claim held by him. In any such case the auction purchaser shall be required to furnish within seven days of the receipt of intimation about the approval of bid, particulars of the compensation filed by him; Provided that the Settlement Commissioner or any officer appointed by him in this behalf may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the aforesaid period of seven days by such further period not exceeding fifteen day as the Settlement Commissioner or such other officer may deem fit; Provided further that the period extended under the preceding provision may further be extended (without any limit of time) by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.";