DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) THE order dated April 4, 2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. Sonepat and order dated February 7, 2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector are the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case as mentioned in the writ petition are that Director/Development and Panchayats, Haryana in exercising powers under Rule 8(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 granted approval for the sale of Shamlat land of Gram Panchayat Agwanpar measuring 182 kanals in open auction vide letter dated April 9, 1991. The aforesaid approval was granted in pursuance of resolution No. 13 of the Gram Panchayat Agwanpur dated June 20, 1989 vide which 447 plots were to be given to the residents of the village in open auction and it was clearly stipulated therein that the rate of the land should not be less than the market rate; one family should purchase only one plot price of the plot was to be deposited directly in the office of Panchayat Samiti the entire price of the plot was to be received at the spot the plot was not to be sold by the petitioner for a period of three years from the date of bid an affidavit was to be filed to the effect that there was no plot in the name of any member of his family and the construction was to be raised within six months from the date of allotment of plot. The District Development and Panchayat Officer was to conduct the auction. The respondent-Gram Panchayat allotted about 300 plots to the eligible persons by way of auctions held on 27.9.1994, 1.10.1994 and 11.11.1994. However, the sale deeds were executed in respect of about 110 plots. An application under Section 10 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as filed by the private respondents to set aside the auction and sale deed secured in favour of the petitioners in pursuance of the auction held alleging therein that there have been illegalities and irregularities in conducting the auction. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade vide order dated October 12, 2004 dismissed the application filed by the contesting respondents. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Collector, who while setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, accepted the appeal and remanded the case for fresh decision on the following issues : "1. Whether the District Development and Panchayat Officer was present at the time of auction as ordered by the Director and if not, what was its effect on the auction and was it not violation of the orders of the Director ? 2. Whether decision of auction dated 16.2.2000 was taken after start of the election process, if it is so what was the justification of staking such a decision ? 3. Whether in respect of the auction dated 16.2.2000 any persons were specially authorized with what resolution ? If not what was its effect on the sale deeds ? 4. In case the sale deeds are got done after the election how Panches of the ex-panchayat were authorized ? 5. Whether any plot has been sold below the reserve price fixed by the Director/Panchayats and Development Department Haryana, is it not a violation of the terms and conditions and is not loss to the Gram Panchayat ? 6. In case the amount of bids is not deposited in Panchayat Samiti, is it not a violation of the terms and conditions set out by the Director ? In case, it is violation why the auction was not cancelled".
(3.) THE Assistant Collector, Ist Grade on remand, vide order dated April 4, 2006, allowed the petition and the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioner on the basis of auction were cancelled and direction was issued to re-auction the plots. It was also directed to take action against the former Sarpanch for violating the terms and conditions imposed by the Director, Panchayats.;