- (1.) A piece of land measuring 1375 square yards belonging to the State and situated within the municipal limits of Charkhi Dadri was to be sold by auction which was conducted by respondent No. 4 (Tehsildar, Charkhi Dadri) on 11th July, 1966 at 11 a.m. According to the petitioner, Jagdish Parshad, the auction in fact did not take place and only auction proceedings were manipulated and it was shown that Murari Lal was the highest bidder at Rs. 4,200/-. On learning about this petitioner contacted Respondent No. 4 and informed him that no auction had in fact taken place and that he should be recorded as the highest bidder at Rs. 10,000/-. As respondent No. 4 did not accept this position, the petitioner gave an offer in writing to him at that very time and copy of this offer was sent to respondent No. 2 and other authorities of the State Government. On getting this representation, respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh) recorded the statement of the petitioner and then passed the following order :- "A piece of abandoned P.W.D. road measuring 1375 square yards at Dadri was auctioned on the spot in 11th July, 1966. The highest bid was of Rs. 4,200/- offered by Shri Murari Lal son of Ram Sarup. The same day at 12 noon Shri Jagdish Rai made an application to the Tehsildar saying that he was willing to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the land. He sent a telegram to me also and I called him to see me in my camp at Dadri on 12th July, 1966. Shri Jagdish Rai offered to deposit in 'Revenue Deposit' a sum of Rs. 6,000/- so that the deficiency, if any, from the promised offer of Rs. 10,000/- could be made out of this deposit. The difference is appreciable. (2) I, therefore, direct that the Tehsildar will auction this land again after wide publicity. The auction will be carried out on the spot. If Shri Jagdish Rai does not give a bid of Rs. 10,000/- atleast he will be liable to lose, out of his deposit, the amount equal to the difference between Rs. 10,000 and the highest bid or the entire six thousand which ever is less". Before the above order was passed the petitioner had moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that case it was decided by P.C. Jain, J. on 2nd March, 1970 that the auction alleged to have been held on 11th July, 1966, was not public auction and was liable to be set aside. The matter was then allowed to rest at the stage of the order passed by respondent No. 2, which has been quoted above. Eversince the order dated 26th July, 1966 was passed the petitioner had been making efforts to have the land auctioned. It is not necessary to set down here all that the petitioner had been doing in this respect. Having been unsuccessful in getting the land auctioned in spite of his offer to bid Rs. 10,000/-, or to make good the deficiency in case he did not bid for this amount, the petitioner approached this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to carry out the order dated 26th July, 1966.
(2.) Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents who contested the petition through the affidavit of Shri R.L. Sudhir, Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh. Subsequently an affidavit of Shri G.L. Nagpal, Under Secretary to Government, Haryana, Revenue Department, has been filed in which it has been stated that the Government undertakes to re-auction the plot in dispute. As the State Government has now decided to re-auction the plot it is directed that the auction be held in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26th July, 1966. The auction be held as early as possible and in any case within four months, as a lot of time has already been taken in settling this matter.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case the bid goes higher than Rs. 10,000 and he is not able to purchase the property the amount of Rs. 6,000 deposited by him should be refunded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, as the delay caused by the respondents in conducting the auction was responsible for raising the price of the land. It is common knowledge that during the last eight years the price of land has gone up considerably. Had the auction been held within a short time of the order of the Deputy Commissioner or even after the passing of the order of this Court by P.C. Jain, J., dated 2nd March, 1970, the price of the plot would have been much less than what it would fetch now. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner has suffered a loss on account of the undue delay caused by the respondents in conducting the auction. Keeping this in view it is directed that in case the auction bid goes above Rs. 10,000 and the petitioner does not purchase the plot the amount of Rs. 6,000 may be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The interest would be paid from the date of the deposit. With the above observations the writ petition is allowed with costs.;