Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 85605 (PNJ)

BALI @ MURTI & ORS v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

RSA/3631/2013 · 2025-05-12

Nidhi Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 214 Smt. Bali alias Murti & Others State of Haryana & Another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for issued by defendant No. 2 is illegal, mandatory injunction registration in the name of plaintiff about the land bearing No. 343//14, 17, 24 full rectangle number and 343//8/2/ 2 (4" short ‘suit land’), Ujana, Tehsil Narwana defendants that they be restrained to destroy the crop of the plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Smt. Bali alias Murti & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Ms. Shruti Singla, Advocate Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG Haryana. *** GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 issued by defendant No. 2 is illegal, null and arbitrary mandatory injunction that the defendants registration in the name of plaintiff about the land bearing No. 343//14, 17, 24 full rectangle number and 343//8/2/ 2 (4" short ‘suit land’), as per jamabandi for the year 2002 Ujana, Tehsil Narwana; and for permanent injunction defendants that they be restrained to destroy the crop of the plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3631-2013(O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Senior Advocate with , Advocate Mr. Shrey Sachdeva, Advocate Saharan, AAG Haryana. in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed that letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 null and arbitrary; and for relief of defendants be directed to execute sale registration in the name of plaintiff about the land bearing No. 343//14, 17, 24 full rectangle number and 343//8/2/ 2 (4"-0), 13/2 (7-7), 18/1, 23/1 (for as per jamabandi for the year 2002-03 situated in village permanent injunction against the defendants that they be restrained to destroy the crop of the plaintiff 20 in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed that letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 relief of directed to execute sale registration in the name of plaintiff about the land bearing No. 343//14, 17, (for village against the defendants that they be restrained to destroy the crop of the plaintiff SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document illegally or forcibly upon the suit courts below. 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as the “plaintiffs”; and respondents as the “defendants”. 3. 1968 Haryana Government had acquired the land of the peoples adjoining to the canal to install brick kiln to construct pucca main that time, land of ancestor of plaintiff was acqui 23.2.1968 was passed. after fulfillment will be given back to real owner at the collector rate. defendants conducted auction of the land by doing munadi and by giving information in the public etc. Plaintiff gave bid amount of Rs. 10,27,000/ and he paid the amount of 1/4th share at that time by taking the receipt for the same. He also st registration. spent lacs of rupees land. Land measuring 0 Kanal 5 Marlas was sold to Rajesh which was required for the installation of brick kiln. On 18.8.2008 a letter was issued by defendant No. 2 in which plaintiff was told to vacate the suit land. In case of non illegally or forcibly upon the suit land, has been dismissed by both the courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as the “plaintiffs”; and respondents as the “defendants”. Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that in the year 1968 Haryana Government had acquired the land of the peoples adjoining to the canal to install brick kiln to construct pucca main that time, land of ancestor of plaintiff was acqui 23.2.1968 was passed. The said Award contained a fulfillment of the purpose for which the land was acquired will be given back to real owner at the collector rate. defendants conducted auction of the land by doing munadi and by giving information in the public etc. Plaintiff gave bid amount of Rs. 10,27,000/ and he paid the amount of 1/4th share at that time by taking the receipt for the same. He also stated that he will be informed regarding sale registration. Plaintiff was orally told to level this of rupees to level the land and harvested paddy crops on this land. Land measuring 0 Kanal 5 Marlas was sold to Rajesh which was required for the installation of brick kiln. On 18.8.2008 a letter was issued by defendant No. 2 in which plaintiff was told to vacate the suit land. In case of non-vacating of land, defendants threatened to vacate the , has been dismissed by both the reinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as the “plaintiffs”; Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that in the year 1968 Haryana Government had acquired the land of the peoples adjoining to the canal to install brick kiln to construct pucca main Bhakra Branch. At that time, land of ancestor of plaintiff was acquired and Award dated contained a clause stipulating that the purpose for which the land was acquired, the land will be given back to real owner at the collector rate. Yet, on 15.12.2003 defendants conducted auction of the land by doing munadi and by giving information in the public etc. Plaintiff gave bid amount of Rs. 10,27,000/- and he paid the amount of 1/4th share at that time by taking the receipt for ated that he will be informed regarding sale Plaintiff was orally told to level this land. Thereafter, plaintiff to level the land and harvested paddy crops on this land. Land measuring 0 Kanal 5 Marlas was sold to Rajesh son of Mangal which was required for the installation of brick kiln. On 18.8.2008 a letter was issued by defendant No. 2 in which plaintiff was told to vacate the suit vacating of land, defendants threatened to vacate the 20 , has been dismissed by both the reinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellants as the “plaintiffs”; Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that in the year 1968 Haryana Government had acquired the land of the peoples adjoining Branch. At ward dated that the land 15.12.2003 defendants conducted auction of the land by doing munadi and by giving - and he paid the amount of 1/4th share at that time by taking the receipt for ated that he will be informed regarding sale Thereafter, plaintiff to level the land and harvested paddy crops on this son of Mangal which was required for the installation of brick kiln. On 18.8.2008 a letter was issued by defendant No. 2 in which plaintiff was told to vacate the suit vacating of land, defendants threatened to vacate the SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document suit land forcibly. This is arbitrary order and against law. Plaintiff has deposited the money for 1/4th share and plaintiff is ready to get executed sale deed in his favour by depositing remaining amount. Now, defendants bent upon to destroy the crop of the plaintiff land. Defendants have no such right. Plaintiff requested many times to cancel the letter dated 18.8.2008 but all was filed on 23.08.2008 4. the suit by filing common written statement inter alia submitting that it was within the power of the defendants to reject the auction. 5. parties, following issues were framed: 6. evidence adduced before it, rcibly. This is arbitrary order and against law. Plaintiff has deposited the money for 1/4th share and plaintiff is ready to get executed sale deed in his favour by depositing remaining amount. Now, defendants bent upon to destroy the crop of the plaintiff land. Defendants have no such right. Plaintiff requested many times to cancel the letter dated 18.8.2008 but all in vain. Hence was filed on 23.08.2008. Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and resisted the suit by filing common written statement inter alia submitting that it was within the power of the defendants to reject the auction. No replication was filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 issued by defendant No. 2 is against law and facts and is liable to be set aside? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute a sale deed of suit land in his favour? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property and is entitled to decree for permanent injunction? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Relief.” On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it, the ld. trial Court had dismissed the suit of the rcibly. This is arbitrary order and against law. Plaintiff has deposited the money for 1/4th share and plaintiff is ready to get executed sale deed in his favour by depositing remaining amount. Now, defendants bent upon to destroy the crop of the plaintiff forcibly or illegally on the suit land. Defendants have no such right. Plaintiff requested many times to in vain. Hence, the present suit Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and resisted the suit by filing common written statement inter alia submitting that it was within the power of the defendants to reject the auction. On the basis of pleadings of the 1. Whether letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 issued by defendant No. 2 is against law and facts and is liable to be set Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory defendants to execute a sale deed of Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property and is entitled to decree for permanent injunction? OPP Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary trial Court had dismissed the suit of the 20 rcibly. This is arbitrary order and against law. Plaintiff has deposited the money for 1/4th share and plaintiff is ready to get executed sale deed in his favour by depositing remaining amount. Now, defendants forcibly or illegally on the suit land. Defendants have no such right. Plaintiff requested many times to the present suit Upon notice, the defendants had appeared and resisted the suit by filing common written statement inter alia submitting that it was On the basis of pleadings of the 1. Whether letter No. 1/SPL/08 dated 18.8.2008 issued by defendant No. 2 is against law and facts and is liable to be set Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for mandatory defendants to execute a sale deed of Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit property and is Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary trial Court had dismissed the suit of the SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated the plaintiff judgment and decree dated 17.08.2013. Hence, present second appeal by the plaintiff. 7. appellant/plaintiff inter alia submits that as per Award No.1 dated 23.02.1968 (Ex.P1), land was acquired is fulfilled, the land will be returned to the landowners. is submitted that in incumbent upon the respondent brick kilns had ceased to function on the said land. 8. 15.12.2003 in which the plaintiff was the highest bidde also deposited 25% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.2,57,250/ possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. the direction of the respondent levelling the said land. subsequent decision of the Government favour of the plaintiff 14 of the Constitution of India 9. appellants that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011. the plaintiff was dismissed by the ld. Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2013. Hence, present second appeal by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff inter alia submits that as per Award No.1 dated 23.02.1968 (Ex.P1), it was stipulated that once the purpose land was acquired is fulfilled, the land will be returned to the landowners. is submitted that in view of this clear stipu incumbent upon the respondents to return the land to the plaintiff once the brick kilns had ceased to function on the said land. It is submitted that, still in which the plaintiff was the highest bidde also deposited 25% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.2,57,250/ possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. the direction of the respondents, the plaintiff had spent lakhs of Rupees in the said land. Learned Senior Counsel contends subsequent decision of the Government to favour of the plaintiff, is patently illegal, arbit 14 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that 17.03.2011. The appeal filed by Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2013. Hence, present second appeal by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff inter alia submits that as per Award No.1 dated once the purpose for which the land was acquired is fulfilled, the land will be returned to the landowners. It this clear stipulation in the Award, it was the land to the plaintiff once the brick kilns had ceased to function on the said land. still the land was put to auction on in which the plaintiff was the highest bidder. The plaintiff had also deposited 25% of the bid amount amounting to Rs.2,57,250/-. Even possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff. Thereafter, as per , the plaintiff had spent lakhs of Rupees in Learned Senior Counsel contends that therefore, the to not confirm the auction in bitrary and violative of the Article is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that 20 The appeal filed by Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2013. Hence, present second appeal by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff inter alia submits that as per Award No.1 dated the It it was the land to the plaintiff once the the land was put to auction on The plaintiff had . Even hereafter, as per , the plaintiff had spent lakhs of Rupees in , the confirm the auction in rary and violative of the Article It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff was sale consideration out of auction in question. The auction/sale is liable to be confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and balance amount is liable to be got deposited from the plaintiff favour of the in relying upon the letter dated 14.8.2006 (Ex. D auction proceedings have not been approved. the said letter does not pertain to the land in question but pertains to Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). No other policy decision has been produced on the record. Thus, the finding that Government did not approve the auction by l it and both the judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. 10. the land in question of Harphool (grandfather of the plaintiff) was acquired and it was provided in the the landowners the cross-examination, no question has been put on the aforesaid aspect. Thus, the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the land of Harphool was acquired and the same was liable to be returned after the purpose for which it was acquired is fulfilled, is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid admission, there was no question of plaintiff was and is always ready and willing to pay balance 75% of the total sale consideration and to perform his part of the contract/obligation arising out of auction in question. The auction/sale is liable to be confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and balance amount is liable to be got deposited from and thereafter Conveyance Deed favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that both the Courts below have erred in relying upon the letter dated 14.8.2006 (Ex. D auction proceedings have not been approved. the said letter does not pertain to the land in question but pertains to Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). No other policy decision has been produced on the record. Thus, the finding that Government did not approve the auction by letter dated 14.8.2006 is perverse on the face of it and both the judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. The plaintiff in his examination the land in question of Harphool (grandfather of the plaintiff) was acquired and it was provided in the Award that the acquired land will be returned to landowners after the purpose is fulfilled examination, no question has been put on the aforesaid aspect. Thus, the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the land of Harphool was acquired and the same was liable to be returned after the purpose for ich it was acquired is fulfilled, is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid admission, there was no question of always ready and willing to pay balance 75% of the total and to perform his part of the contract/obligation arising out of auction in question. The auction/sale is liable to be confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and balance amount is liable to be got deposited from and thereafter Conveyance Deed is liable to be executed in hat both the Courts below have erred in relying upon the letter dated 14.8.2006 (Ex. D-II/A) to hold that the auction proceedings have not been approved. The fact of the matter is that the said letter does not pertain to the land in question but pertains to Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). No other policy decision has been produced on the record. Thus, the finding that Government did etter dated 14.8.2006 is perverse on the face of it and both the judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. he plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has stated that the land in question of Harphool (grandfather of the plaintiff) was acquired ward that the acquired land will be returned to after the purpose is fulfilled for which it was acquired. In examination, no question has been put on the aforesaid aspect. Thus, the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the land of Harphool was acquired and the same was liable to be returned after the purpose for ich it was acquired is fulfilled, is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid admission, there was no question of 20 always ready and willing to pay balance 75% of the total and to perform his part of the contract/obligation arising out of auction in question. The auction/sale is liable to be confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and balance amount is liable to be got deposited from is liable to be executed in hat both the Courts below have erred II/A) to hold that the The fact of the matter is that the said letter does not pertain to the land in question but pertains to Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). No other policy decision has been produced on the record. Thus, the finding that Government did etter dated 14.8.2006 is perverse on the face of chief has stated that the land in question of Harphool (grandfather of the plaintiff) was acquired ward that the acquired land will be returned to for which it was acquired. In examination, no question has been put on the aforesaid aspect. Thus, the statement of the plaintiff to the effect that the land of Harphool was acquired and the same was liable to be returned after the purpose for ich it was acquired is fulfilled, is deemed to have been admitted by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid admission, there was no question of SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document auction not being confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and not executing the conveyance deed in his favour. 11. admission, it is crystal clear that regard to alleged cancellation of auction regarding the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind which was admittedly acquired for the purpose of setting up Brick Kiln for lining the Main Bhakra Canal. It is obvious that without there being any evidence on the record, a finding has been recorded that a policy decision was taken with regard to cancellation of auction in question. Even as per letter dated 14.8.2006 Ex. D question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. In fact, the said letter pertains to sale of land of Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). Another document dated 10.8.2007 Ex. been produced on the record. The said letter also says that Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and it further says that it has been decided that in all such cases wherein sale has not been finalized, earnest money, if any, may be refunded. From the contents of said document, it is obvious that the same relates to sale of land of Rest Houses only. Aforesaid documents are neither statutory instructions nor pr the decision was taken to not to confirm the auction in question. Thus, being confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and not executing the conveyance deed in his favour. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that from admission, it is crystal clear that defendants have produced no record with regard to alleged cancellation of auction regarding the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind which was admittedly acquired for the purpose of setting up Brick Kiln for lining the Main Bhakra Canal. It is obvious that without there being any evidence on the record, a finding has been recorded that a policy decision was taken with regard to cancellation of auction in question. Even as per letter dated 14.8.2006 Ex. D-II-A (Ex. D-2/A), there is no reference to the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. In fact, the said letter pertains to sale of land of Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). Another document dated 10.8.2007 Ex. been produced on the record. The said letter also says that Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and it further says that it has been decided that in all such cases wherein sale has not been finalized, further proceedings may not be confirmed and earnest money, if any, may be refunded. From the contents of said document, it is obvious that the same relates to sale of land of Rest Houses only. Aforesaid documents are neither statutory instructions nor pr the decision was taken to not to confirm the auction in question. Thus, being confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and not executing the Ld. Senior Counsel submits that from the aforesaid defendants have produced no record with regard to alleged cancellation of auction regarding the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind which was admittedly acquired for the purpose of setting up Brick Kiln for lining the Main Bhakra Canal. It is obvious that without there being any evidence on the record, a finding has been recorded that a policy decision was taken with regard to cancellation of auction in question. Even as per letter dated ), there is no reference to the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. In fact, the said letter pertains to sale of land of Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of village Badsikri (Kaithal). Another document dated 10.8.2007 Ex. D-II/B has been produced on the record. The said letter also says that Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and it further says that it has been decided that in all such cases wherein sale further proceedings may not be confirmed and earnest money, if any, may be refunded. From the contents of said document, it is obvious that the same relates to sale of land of Rest Houses only. Aforesaid documents are neither statutory instructions nor prove that the decision was taken to not to confirm the auction in question. Thus, 20 being confirmed in favour of the plaintiff and not executing the the aforesaid defendants have produced no record with regard to alleged cancellation of auction regarding the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind which was admittedly acquired for the purpose of setting up Brick Kiln for lining the Main Bhakra Canal. It is obvious that without there being any evidence on the record, a finding has been recorded that a policy decision was taken with regard to cancellation of auction in question. Even as per letter dated ), there is no reference to the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. In fact, the said letter pertains to sale of land of Rest Houses and Brick Kilns of II/B has been produced on the record. The said letter also says that Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and it further says that it has been decided that in all such cases wherein sale further proceedings may not be confirmed and earnest money, if any, may be refunded. From the contents of said document, it is obvious that the same relates to sale of land of Rest Houses ove that the decision was taken to not to confirm the auction in question. Thus, SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document although neither any so of the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind nor any decision t placed on record yet both the Courts below have returned a finding that State of Haryana has taken a policy decision question. The finding recorded by both the Courts below is pe face of it. It is, judgment & decree dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana an passed by the learned Additiona suit of the appellant/plaintiff be decreed as prayed for 12. opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and refers to the auction notice dated 18.11 conditions contained in to cancel the auction completely or partially without giving any reason. 06. The reserved price will be returned to the unsuccessful bidders at the spot.”. It is submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions of the auction before participating in the same. As such, the plaintiff cannot now turn around and renege from the same. It is submitted that therefore, the defendant was well within its rights in rejecting the auction qua the plaintiff vide letter although neither any so-called policy regarding not confirming the auction of the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind nor any decision to refund the earnest money of the same has been placed on record yet both the Courts below have returned a finding that State of Haryana has taken a policy decision question. The finding recorded by both the Courts below is pe face of it. It is, accordingly, prayed that judgment & decree dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana and the judgment & decree dated 17 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jind be set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff be decreed as prayed for Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and refers to the auction notice dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.D1) in particular to the terms and contained in Clause 5, whereby the respondents had to cancel the auction completely or partially without giving any reason. 06. The reserved price will be returned to the unsuccessful bidders at the spot.”. It is submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions tion before participating in the same. As such, the plaintiff cannot now turn around and renege from the same. It is submitted that therefore, the defendant was well within its rights in rejecting the auction qua the plaintiff vide letters dated 14.08.2006 called policy regarding not confirming the auction of the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District o refund the earnest money of the same has been placed on record yet both the Courts below have returned a finding that State of Haryana has taken a policy decision not to confirm the auction in question. The finding recorded by both the Courts below is perverse on the , prayed that this appeal be accepted, the judgment & decree dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge d the judgment & decree dated 17.08.2013 l District Judge, Jind be set aside and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff be decreed as prayed for. Learned counsel for the respondents-State vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and refers to the .2003 (Ex.D1) in particular to the terms and the respondents had “…the right to cancel the auction completely or partially without giving any reason. 06. The reserved price will be returned to the unsuccessful bidders at the spot.”. It is submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions tion before participating in the same. As such, the plaintiff cannot now turn around and renege from the same. It is submitted that therefore, the defendant was well within its rights in rejecting the auction qua the (Ex.D2/A) and letter dated 20 called policy regarding not confirming the auction of the land in question situated at village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District o refund the earnest money of the same has been placed on record yet both the Courts below have returned a finding that not to confirm the auction in rverse on the appeal be accepted, the judgment & decree dated 17.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge 8.2013 l District Judge, Jind be set aside and the State vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and refers to the .2003 (Ex.D1) in particular to the terms and “…the right to cancel the auction completely or partially without giving any reason. 06. The reserved price will be returned to the unsuccessful bidders at the spot.”. It is submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the terms and conditions tion before participating in the same. As such, the plaintiff cannot now turn around and renege from the same. It is submitted that therefore, the defendant was well within its rights in rejecting the auction qua the (Ex.D2/A) and letter dated SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10.08.2007 (Ex.D2/B). In support, learned counsel relies upon Bench judgment of Others” CWP confirm or reject an not accepted and therefore, the respondents were well within their right in not confirming the auction. It is further submitted that as the appellant participated in the auction, he was estopped from laying challe same. 13. 14. the case file in great detail. 15. 01.09.1967: was issued proposing to acquire the land measuring 6.43 acres situated in Village Ujjhana, Harphool Singh/ setting up brick kilns for lining Bhakra Main 03.10.1967: A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued acquiring the aforesaid land. 23.09.1968: Award No. 1 for the year Collector, Jind on 23.09.1968 predecessor in interest of the appellant. 10.08.2007 (Ex.D2/B). In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of this Court in “Suraj Bhan Vs. State of Haryana & Others” CWP-18521-2006 decided on 06.11.2007 confirm or reject an auction vests with the State. The appellant’s offer was not accepted and therefore, the respondents were well within their right in not confirming the auction. It is further submitted that as the appellant participated in the auction, he was estopped from laying challe No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. Facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued proposing to acquire the land measuring 6.43 acres situated in Village Ujjhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind Harphool Singh/ the grandfather of the appellant brick kilns for lining Bhakra Main – : A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued acquiring the aforesaid land. : Award No. 1 for the year 1967- Collector, Jind on 23.09.1968 acquiring predecessor in interest of the appellant. A 10.08.2007 (Ex.D2/B). In support, learned counsel relies upon Division “Suraj Bhan Vs. State of Haryana & 2006 decided on 06.11.2007, to submit that power to with the State. The appellant’s offer was not accepted and therefore, the respondents were well within their right in not confirming the auction. It is further submitted that as the appellant participated in the auction, he was estopped from laying challenge to the No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused acts of the case in chronological order are as follows: – A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued proposing to acquire the land measuring 6.43 acres situated in Narwana, District Jind which was in the ownership of ppellant. The land was required for – Barwala Canal. : A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -68 (Ex.P-1), was passed by the acquiring the above said land of the A condition contained in the said 20 Division “Suraj Bhan Vs. State of Haryana & to submit that power to with the State. The appellant’s offer was not accepted and therefore, the respondents were well within their right in not confirming the auction. It is further submitted that as the appellant nge to the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued proposing to acquire the land measuring 6.43 acres situated in of . The land was required for : A notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was passed by the land of the condition contained in the said SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Award was that when the land is no longer required by the department, it will be released to the owners at Collector rate. 18.11.2003: up for auction. on 18.11.2003 regarding the auction of the Bhakra Main acquired from the predecessor of the appellant. 15.12.2003: The auction was held on 15.12.2003. appellant was the highest bidder by giving bid of Rs. aforesaid land. 2,57,250/- at the fall of the hammer. Possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant spen the land in reserved price. 14.08.2006:A Commissioner, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana s auction was immediately in respect of (Kaithal). 10.08.2007: Engineer in Chief, Haryana Irrigation Department issued letter dated 10.08.2007 ( Department Haryana stating that the Govt. has decided that canal rest Award was that when the land is no longer required by the department, it be released to the owners at Collector rate. : Subsequently the said land was declared surplus and was put up for auction. An advertisement (Ex. D-1) was published in the newspaper on 18.11.2003 regarding the auction of the Bhakra Main – Barwala link Canal which included the land in question acquired from the predecessor of the appellant. : The auction was held on 15.12.2003. appellant was the highest bidder by giving bid of Rs. aforesaid land. The appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount Rs. at the fall of the hammer. Possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant spen making it cultivatable. The bid of appellant was higher than reserved price. None of the aforesaid facts are disputed. A letter dated 14.08.2006 (Ex.D-II/A Commissioner, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana s not confirmed and it was decided to refund all the concerned immediately in respect of rest house and : Engineer in Chief, Haryana Irrigation Department issued letter .08.2007 (Ex.D-II/B) to all Superintending Engineers, Irrigation Department Haryana stating that the Govt. has decided that canal rest Award was that when the land is no longer required by the department, it be released to the owners at Collector rate. Subsequently the said land was declared surplus and was put ) was published in the newspaper on 18.11.2003 regarding the auction of the said surplus land adjacent to Barwala link Canal which included the land in question acquired from the predecessor of the appellant. : The auction was held on 15.12.2003. It is not disputed that the appellant was the highest bidder by giving bid of Rs. 10,27,000/- for the deposited 25% of the bid amount Rs. at the fall of the hammer. Possession of the land was handed over to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant spent lacs of rupees in levelling making it cultivatable. The bid of appellant was higher than None of the aforesaid facts are disputed. II/A) was issued by the Financial Commissioner, Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Haryana stating that the not confirmed and it was decided to refund all the concerned rest house and brick kilns of Village Badsikri : Engineer in Chief, Haryana Irrigation Department issued letter to all Superintending Engineers, Irrigation Department Haryana stating that the Govt. has decided that canal rest 20 Award was that when the land is no longer required by the department, it Subsequently the said land was declared surplus and was put ) was published in the newspaper acent to Barwala link Canal which included the land in question It is not disputed that the for the deposited 25% of the bid amount Rs. at the fall of the hammer. Possession of the land was handed levelling making it cultivatable. The bid of appellant was higher than issued by the Financial tating that the not confirmed and it was decided to refund all the concerned brick kilns of Village Badsikri : Engineer in Chief, Haryana Irrigation Department issued letter to all Superintending Engineers, Irrigation Department Haryana stating that the Govt. has decided that canal rest SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document house of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and that it has been decided in all such cases wher finalized further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, if any, be refunded. the respondents issued letter dated 18.8.2008, asking the appellant to vacate the suit land. 23.08.2008: The plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that impugned letters dated 16.08.2008 and 18.08.2008 issued by the defendant No. 2 are illegal against law, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set aside; and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to execute sale deed of the suit land on receipt of the balance sale consideration in which the appellant was highest bidder in the auction held on 15.12.2003. 06.09.2008: pleading in brief in future including all such land which were put to auction and auction proceedings thereof has not been sanctioned. It was specifically pleaded that “that the Govt. has not approved the auction proceedings of question and other sites pending for want of approval 17.03.2011: The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide Judgement and Decree dated 17.03.2011. house of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and that it has been decided in all such cases wher finalized further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, if any, be refunded. On the basis of the above letters the respondents issued letter dated 18.8.2008, asking the appellant to suit land. : The plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that impugned letters dated 16.08.2008 and 18.08.2008 issued by the defendant No. 2 are illegal against law, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to execute sale deed of the suit land on receipt of the balance sale consideration in which the appellant was highest bidder in the auction held on 15.12.2003. The respondent filed written statement dated 06.09.2008 pleading in brief that the Govt. took the decision not to sale the Govt. land in future including all such land which were put to auction and auction proceedings thereof has not been sanctioned. It was specifically pleaded that the Govt. has not approved the auction proceedings of and other sites pending for want of approval : The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide Judgement and Decree dated 17.03.2011. house of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and that it has been decided in all such cases wherein sale has not been finalized further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, if On the basis of the above letters Ex. D-II/A and Ex. D-II/B, the respondents issued letter dated 18.8.2008, asking the appellant to : The plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that impugned letters dated 16.08.2008 and 18.08.2008 issued by the defendant No. 2 are illegal against law, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to execute sale deed of the suit land on receipt of the balance sale consideration in which the appellant was highest bidder in the auction held tten statement dated 06.09.2008 that the Govt. took the decision not to sale the Govt. land in future including all such land which were put to auction and auction proceedings thereof has not been sanctioned. It was specifically pleaded that the Govt. has not approved the auction proceedings of the land in and other sites pending for want of approval”. : The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned trial court vide Judgement and Decree dated 17.03.2011. 20 house of Haryana Irrigation Department shall not be sold henceforth and ein sale has not been finalized further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, if B, the respondents issued letter dated 18.8.2008, asking the appellant to : The plaintiff filed Civil Suit for declaration to the effect that impugned letters dated 16.08.2008 and 18.08.2008 issued by the defendant No. 2 are illegal against law, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be set and also for mandatory injunction directing the respondent to execute sale deed of the suit land on receipt of the balance sale consideration in which the appellant was highest bidder in the auction held tten statement dated 06.09.2008 that the Govt. took the decision not to sale the Govt. land in future including all such land which were put to auction and auction proceedings thereof has not been sanctioned. It was specifically pleaded the land in trial court SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15.04.2011: The appellant filed appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2011. 17.08.2013: The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the ld. Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2013. present second appeal by 16. the land of the appellant/predecessor measuring 6.43 acres setting up brick kilns for land question was acquired by the department, it will be released to the owners at Collector rate. the land was put to auction. Admittedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction as well. However, the auction was cancelled 14.8.2006(Ex. D have non-suited the appel letters, policy which cannot be interfered with. The relevant para 13 of the judgment dated 17.8.2013, in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, : The appellant filed appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2011. : The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the ld. Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2013. present second appeal by the plaintiff. From a bare reading of the above facts, it is clear that land of the appellant/predecessor-in-interest of the appellant measuring 6.43 acres was acquired by the respondents setting up brick kilns for land Main Bhakra Canal (left side) question was acquired with the condition that when by the department, it will be released to the owners at Collector rate. the land was put to auction. Admittedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction as well. However, the auction was cancelled Ex. D-II/A) and 10.8.2007 (Ex. D- suited the appellant on the ground that policy decision was taken by the respondents to cancel the auction which cannot be interfered with. The relevant para 13 of the judgment dated 17.8.2013, reflecting the reasoning of the learn in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, reads as follows: “13. I have duly considered the rival contention of both the parties and have perused the record. Certain facts are not disputed between the parties. It is admitted that for b of Bhakra Branch, Government decided to acquire the land of : The appellant filed appeal against the Judgment and Decree : The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the ld. First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 17.08.2013. Hence, of the above facts, it is clear that interest of the appellant, total was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of Main Bhakra Canal (left side). The land in with the condition that when it is no longer required by the department, it will be released to the owners at Collector rate. Yet, the land was put to auction. Admittedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction as well. However, the auction was cancelled vide letters dated -II/B).The learned courts below lant on the ground that vide the above said decision was taken by the respondents to cancel the auction which cannot be interfered with. The relevant para 13 of the judgment of the learned 1st Appellate Court reads as follows: – 13. I have duly considered the rival contention of both the parties and have perused the record. Certain facts are not disputed between the parties. It is admitted that for brick lining of Bhakra Branch, Government decided to acquire the land of 20 : The appellant filed appeal against the Judgment and Decree First Hence, of the above facts, it is clear that total for the purpose of The land in is no longer required Yet, the land was put to auction. Admittedly, appellant was the highest bidder in letters dated The learned courts below vide the above said decision was taken by the respondents to cancel the auction which cannot be interfered with. The relevant para 13 of the judgment 1st Appellate Court 13. I have duly considered the rival contention of both the parties and have perused the record. Certain facts are not rick lining of Bhakra Branch, Government decided to acquire the land of SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, the people, adjoining to the canal, to install brick kiln. The land was acquired and awards were passed on 23.3.1968 which is Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-3. It was mentioned in the award that th land should be returned afterward, if it was no longer required by the Government, at the rate to be assessed by the Collector. It is also admitted that in pursuant to the Government policy, auction was conducted on 15.12.2003 wherein highest bidder of the suit land. He deposited 25% of the amount vide receipt Ex. P-2 of an amount of Rs. 2,55,850/ The dispute arose when plaintiff was not called for execution of sale registration in his favour about the suit land despite being highest bidder. It is not the case that Government surplus land/ suit land has been given to some one else in arbitrary manner depriving the plaintiff of his rights to get the sale deed registered despite being highest bidder. Auction proceedings and sale was to be approved by the Government. Vide letter Ex. D-2/A dated 14.8.2006 by Financial Commissioner, Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, auction proceedings were not approved and it was decided to refund the amount to the concerned immediately. Similar mentioned that auction proceedings have not been approved and it was directed to refund the amount. Engineer in Chief Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula sent letter Ex. DII/B to all the Superintending Engineers that in vi Government decision the Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation Department cannot be sold hence forth. It was decided that all such cases were auction has not been finalized, further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, if any, be refunded. As per Ex. D be deposited at the time of auction and remaining 75% after the people, adjoining to the canal, to install brick kiln. The land was acquired and awards were passed on 23.3.1968 which is 3. It was mentioned in the award that the land should be returned afterward, if it was no longer required by the Government, at the rate to be assessed by the Collector. It is also admitted that in pursuant to the Government policy, auction was conducted on 15.12.2003 wherein the plaintiff was ighest bidder of the suit land. He deposited 25% of the 2 of an amount of Rs. 2,55,850/-. The dispute arose when plaintiff was not called for execution of sale registration in his favour about the suit land despite being bidder. It is not the case that Government surplus land/ suit land has been given to some one else in arbitrary manner depriving the plaintiff of his rights to get the sale deed registered despite being highest bidder. Auction proceedings e approved by the Government. Vide letter Ex. 2/A dated 14.8.2006 by Financial Commissioner, Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, auction proceedings were not approved and it was decided to refund the amount to the concerned immediately. Similarly in letter Ex. DII/A it is mentioned that auction proceedings have not been approved and it was directed to refund the amount. Engineer in Chief Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula sent letter Ex. DII/B to all the Superintending Engineers that in view of the Government decision the Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation Department cannot be sold hence forth. It was decided that all such cases were auction has not been finalized, further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, efunded. As per Ex. D-1 25% of the amount was to be deposited at the time of auction and remaining 75% after 20 the people, adjoining to the canal, to install brick kiln. The land was acquired and awards were passed on 23.3.1968 which is e land should be returned afterward, if it was no longer required by the Government, at the rate to be assessed by the Collector. It is also admitted that in pursuant to the Government policy, the plaintiff was ighest bidder of the suit land. He deposited 25% of the The dispute arose when plaintiff was not called for execution of sale registration in his favour about the suit land despite being bidder. It is not the case that Government surplus land/ suit land has been given to some one else in arbitrary manner depriving the plaintiff of his rights to get the sale deed registered despite being highest bidder. Auction proceedings e approved by the Government. Vide letter Ex. 2/A dated 14.8.2006 by Financial Commissioner, Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, auction proceedings were not approved and it was decided to refund the amount to ly in letter Ex. DII/A it is mentioned that auction proceedings have not been approved and it was directed to refund the amount. Engineer in Chief Haryana Irrigation Department, Panchkula sent letter Ex. DII/B ew of the Government decision the Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation Department cannot be sold hence forth. It was decided that all such cases were auction has not been finalized, further proceedings may not be continued and earnest money, 1 25% of the amount was to be deposited at the time of auction and remaining 75% after SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17. below to be below have lost sight of the fact that (Ex. D-II/A), was only in respect of the ‘ kiln of village Badsikri (Kaithal) only with respect to Whereas land of plaintiff is situated in District Jind, which In the letter that the land purchased by the appellant in the auction has not been approved. getting approval. In the present case the plaintiff was not called to deposit the remaining 75% as auction proceedings were not finalized by the Government. The earnest amount taken at the time of auction was decided to be refunded to the successful bidders. Plaintiff refused to take the refunded amount. Plaintiff failed to show that decision of the not to finalize the auction proceedings successful bidder or in declining the approval, is on account of any arbitrary and mala fide exercise on the part of defendants. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case. It was policy decision taken by Government and it could not be shown that Government had acted against public policy or on account of mala fide against the plaintiff.” I find the above said reasoning of the learne below to be fundamentally flawed. In holding as above, the learned courts below have lost sight of the fact that the aforesaid letter ), was only in respect of the ‘land of village Badsikri (Kaithal).’ And letter dated 10.08.2 only with respect to ‘Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department Whereas land of plaintiff is situated in Village Ujjhana, Te , which was acquired for purpose of setting up of brick kiln only. letters dated 14.08.2006 and 10.8.2007, that the land purchased by the appellant in the auction has not been approved. Thus, the aforesaid letters were getting approval. In the present case the plaintiff was not called to deposit the remaining 75% as auction proceedings vernment. The earnest amount taken at the time of auction was decided to be refunded to the successful bidders. Plaintiff refused to take the refunded amount. Plaintiff failed to show that decision of the defendants not to finalize the auction proceedings in which he was successful bidder or in declining the approval, is on account of any arbitrary and mala fide exercise on the part of defendants. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has failed to substantiate his case. It was policy decision taken by the Government and it could not be shown that Government had acted against public policy or on account of mala fide against I find the above said reasoning of the learned Courts . In holding as above, the learned courts aforesaid letter dated 14.8.2006 land of Canal rest house and brick letter dated 10.08.2007 (Ex.D-II/B) is Canal Rest Houses of Haryana Irrigation Department’. Village Ujjhana, Tehsil Narwana, was acquired for purpose of setting up of brick kiln only. and 10.8.2007, it is nowhere mentioned that the land purchased by the appellant in the auction dated 15.12.2003, aforesaid letters were not pertaining to 20 getting approval. In the present case the plaintiff was not called to deposit the remaining 75% as auction proceedings vernment. The earnest amount taken at the time of auction was decided to be refunded to the successful bidders. Plaintiff refused to take the refunded defendants in which he was successful bidder or in declining the approval, is on account of any arbitrary and mala fide exercise on the part of defendants. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has failed to the Government and it could not be shown that Government had acted against public policy or on account of mala fide against d Courts . In holding as above, the learned courts dated 14.8.2006 Canal rest house and brick II/B) is ’. Narwana, was acquired for purpose of setting up of brick kiln only. it is nowhere mentioned dated 15.12.2003, pertaining to SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the land purchased by the appellant in aucti Village Ujjhana, Te land of plaintiff has been brought to the notice of this Court. In fact, the record reveals that no letter whatsoever has been issued by the respondents in respect of the suit land. 18. courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant on the misapprehension of the above-said letters. In doing so, the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that and brick kilns in village Badsikri, Kaithal; and D-II/B) is only with respect to Department; it was decided to refund the earnest money. to the land of the plaintiff. misinterpreted the aforesaid letters and sought to refund the 25% of the aforesaid amount deposited by the appellant, by bank draft dated 18.07.2008, which was not accepted by the 19. below have failed to appreciate that specifically pleaded that the govt. has decided not to approve the auction proceedings of the “ any evidence to show any decision the land purchased by the appellant in aucti Village Ujjhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. land of plaintiff has been brought to the notice of this Court. In fact, the record reveals that no letter whatsoever has been issued by the ts in respect of the suit land. At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the learned courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant on the misapprehension of said letters. In doing so, the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that the letter dated 14.8.2006 is only with respect to rest house and brick kilns in village Badsikri, Kaithal; and II/B) is only with respect to Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation ; whereby the auction in respect thereof was not finalized, it was decided to refund the earnest money. to the land of the plaintiff. Yet, without any justification the de misinterpreted the aforesaid letters and sought to refund the 25% of the aforesaid amount deposited by the appellant, by bank draft dated , which was not accepted by the appellant. In dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, both below have failed to appreciate that in the written statement it is specifically pleaded that the govt. has decided not to approve the auction proceedings of the “land in question”. Yet, the respondent any evidence to show any decision was the land purchased by the appellant in auction which land is situated in Narwana, District Jind. No such letter pertaining to land of plaintiff has been brought to the notice of this Court. In fact, the record reveals that no letter whatsoever has been issued by the At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the learned courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant on the misapprehension of said letters. In doing so, the learned Courts below have failed to letter dated 14.8.2006 is only with respect to rest house and brick kilns in village Badsikri, Kaithal; and letter dated 10.08.2007 (Ex. Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation whereby the auction in respect thereof was not finalized, and it was decided to refund the earnest money. The said letters do not pertain Yet, without any justification the defendant misinterpreted the aforesaid letters and sought to refund the 25% of the aforesaid amount deposited by the appellant, by bank draft dated appellant. In dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, both the ld. Courts in the written statement it is specifically pleaded that the govt. has decided not to approve the auction . Yet, the respondent did not produce was taken in respect of the land 20 which land is situated in No such letter pertaining to land of plaintiff has been brought to the notice of this Court. In fact, the record reveals that no letter whatsoever has been issued by the At the risk of repetition, it is reiterated that the learned courts below dismissed the suit of the appellant on the misapprehension of said letters. In doing so, the learned Courts below have failed to letter dated 14.8.2006 is only with respect to rest house 10.08.2007 (Ex. Canal Rest House of Haryana Irrigation and The said letters do not pertain fendant misinterpreted the aforesaid letters and sought to refund the 25% of the aforesaid amount deposited by the appellant, by bank draft dated Courts in the written statement it is specifically pleaded that the govt. has decided not to approve the auction did not produce taken in respect of the land SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document purchased by the appellant. the plaintiff have also ignored that admitted that he does not possess the record relating to cancellation of auction in question and that the documents which he is exhibiting, reference to Brick Kilns. produced, the decision by the local officials namely Executive Engineer Narwana Water Service Division finding that Government did not approve the auction by letter 14.8.2006 and 10.8.2007, judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. 20. respondents that Notice dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.D of the respondent surplus land is assurances given to the public policy. reasons whatsoever non-speaking decision cannot be sustained in terms of of this Court in 130283, wherein it is held that purchased by the appellant. No other policy decision the plaintiff has been produced on the record. have also ignored that DW-1, Shri R.K. Goyal, Sub Divisional Officer has admitted that he does not possess the record relating to cancellation of auction in question and that the documents which he is exhibiting, reference to Brick Kilns. In view of the fact the decision by the local officials namely Executive Engineer Narwana Water Service Division, could not have been sustained. finding that Government did not approve the auction by letter and 10.8.2007, is perverse on the face of it and both the judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. It has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that it was within the terms and conditions of the dated 18.11.2003 (Ex.D-1), to reject the auction. respondent State of Haryana that it has decided not to auction surplus land is not only arbitrary and assurances given to the landowners in the public policy. The learned Courts below ought to have appreciated whatsoever have been given for not confirming the auction. speaking decision cannot be sustained in terms of is Court in “Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana” Law Finder Doc ID # wherein it is held that the competent authority cannot without No other policy decision in respect of land of has been produced on the record. The learned courts below 1, Shri R.K. Goyal, Sub Divisional Officer has admitted that he does not possess the record relating to cancellation of auction in question and that the documents which he is exhibiting, has no In view of the fact that no such record was the decision by the local officials namely Executive Engineer, could not have been sustained. Thus, the finding that Government did not approve the auction by letters dated erse on the face of it and both the judgments based thereon are liable to be set aside. has been argued by learned counsel for the it was within the terms and conditions of the Auction the auction. However, this stand State of Haryana that it has decided not to auction and unjust, but also violates the in the Award itself and also against ought to have appreciated that no have been given for not confirming the auction. Such a speaking decision cannot be sustained in terms of Full Bench decision “Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana” Law Finder Doc ID # the competent authority cannot without 20 in respect of land of The learned courts below 1, Shri R.K. Goyal, Sub Divisional Officer has admitted that he does not possess the record relating to cancellation of no was , Thus, the dated erse on the face of it and both the has been argued by learned counsel for the uction stand State of Haryana that it has decided not to auction violates the ward itself and also against no Such a decision “Subhash Chand Vs. State of Haryana” Law Finder Doc ID # the competent authority cannot without SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document citing any reason or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons reject the highest bidder and that highest bidder of the decision of the competent authority and that the respondent cannot without assigning any well reason set aside the auction. categorically held that give reasons for non of any reasons, non 21. under: citing any reason or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons reject the highest bidder and that highest bidder has the right to question the legality of the decision of the competent authority and that the respondent cannot without assigning any well reason set aside the auction. categorically held that“...The competent authority is under an obligation give reasons for non-acceptance of the highest or other bid...In the absence of any reasons, non-acceptance will be arbitrary and unfair...” Further, in para 19 of the “19. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into a contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with the rule of law. (Ref. (i) Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, 1990(3) SCC 752 and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, 1990(3) SCC 280) necessary corollary thereto, it is held that the State Government cannot refuse to confirm t assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. 20. As regards locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition, we have already held that every highest bidder has a right to assail the action of the State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons, though in such like matters, heavy onus would lie on the petitioner to establish his citing any reason or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons reject the has the right to question the legality of the decision of the competent authority and that the respondent cannot without assigning any well reason set aside the auction. It has been “...The competent authority is under an obligation to acceptance of the highest or other bid...In the absence acceptance will be arbitrary and unfair...” in para 19 of the said judgment it is held as The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into a contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil and (ii) M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, 1990(3) SCC 280). As a necessary corollary thereto, it is held that the State Government cannot refuse to confirm the highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or 20. As regards locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition, we have already held that every highest bidder the action of the State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons, though in such like matters, heavy onus would lie on the petitioner to establish his 20 citing any reason or for totally arbitrary or irrelevant reasons reject the has the right to question the legality of the decision of the competent authority and that the respondent cannot It has been to acceptance of the highest or other bid...In the absence as The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into a contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of . As a necessary corollary thereto, it is held that the State he highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or 20. As regards locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition, we have already held that every highest bidder the action of the State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons, though in such like matters, heavy onus would lie on the petitioner to establish his SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22. of this Court in Doc ID # 62568, allegations as the State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law.” Reference may be made to another of this Court in “Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Another” Law Finder Doc ID # 62568, relevant part of which is as under: “9. Further the contention that no legal right vests in a highest or other bidder so as to entitle him to challenge an action of the appropriate authority in refusing to accept the highest or other bids, is not legally tenable. The aggrieved person whose right to the property as a result of non highest bid, is being taken away, can certainly challenge the action on the ground that the order authority is arbitrary or has come in existence as a result of extraneous considerations and in case it is so proved, then the order of non-acceptance would certainly be liable to be quashed. The State Government or the appropriate authority can defend its action by disclosing reasons given for non acceptance of the bid and if the same are would straightaway be declined. But there is no warrant for this proposition that even if the order of the authority in not accepting the bid is arbitrary and does not disclose any reasons, then also the legality of the same cannot challenged in a Court of law. XXX 14. For the reasons recorded, above, I allow this petition, quash the order of the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 7th January and direct the appropriate authority to confirm the sale in action shall always be presumed to be may be made to another Full Bench judgment “Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Another” Law Finder relevant part of which is as under:- Further the contention that no legal right vests in a highest or other bidder so as to entitle him to challenge an action of the appropriate authority in refusing to accept the highest or other bids, is not legally tenable. The aggrieved person whose to the property as a result of non-acceptance of the highest bid, is being taken away, can certainly challenge the action on the ground that the order of the appropriate arbitrary or has come in existence as a result of ons and in case it is so proved, then the acceptance would certainly be liable to be quashed. The State Government or the appropriate authority can defend its action by disclosing reasons given for non- acceptance of the bid and if the same are found relevant, relief would straightaway be declined. But there is no warrant for this proposition that even if the order of the authority in not accepting the bid is arbitrary and does not disclose any reasons, then also the legality of the same cannot be 14. For the reasons recorded, above, I allow this petition, quash the order of the Joint Secretary (Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement January 1983, copy Annexure P-2, and direct the appropriate authority to confirm the sale in 20 action shall always be presumed to be Full Bench judgment “Surja Ram Vs. State of Haryana & Another” Law Finder Further the contention that no legal right vests in a highest or other bidder so as to entitle him to challenge an action of the appropriate authority in refusing to accept the highest or other bids, is not legally tenable. The aggrieved person whose acceptance of the highest bid, is being taken away, can certainly challenge the of the appropriate arbitrary or has come in existence as a result of ons and in case it is so proved, then the acceptance would certainly be liable to be quashed. The State Government or the appropriate authority - found relevant, relief would straightaway be declined. But there is no warrant for this proposition that even if the order of the authority in not accepting the bid is arbitrary and does not disclose any be 14. For the reasons recorded, above, I allow this petition, quash Settlement 2, and direct the appropriate authority to confirm the sale in SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I 23. will prevail over the relied upon by learned 24. laid down by the Full Bench Court had vide order dated 05.09.2018 specifically granted time to the State Counsel to refer to the record spelling out the reasons for not the auction in respect of the suit land in which the appellant was highest bidder. However, did not produce the record relating to the land in question which the appellant was the highest bidder. No file noting or record in respect of land of the appellant was produced. It however, filed an affid of Executive Engineer, Water Service Division Narwana which merely referred to another judgment in respect of other lands situated in Mundri Fatehpur CRF in which some decision had been taken but not in respect of the land of the appellant. The afores also noticed by this the counsel for the State sought further time however till date neither any material nor produced by the respondent. to draw an adverse inference against the respondent favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.” Needless to say, the above said Full Bench judgments will prevail over the Division Bench judgment upon by learned counsel for the respondents It may also be pointed out that laid down by the Full Benches of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2018 specifically granted time to the State Counsel to refer to the record spelling out the reasons for not the auction in respect of the suit land in which the appellant was highest However, in spite of the aforesaid liberty granted did not produce the record relating to the land in question which the appellant was the highest bidder. No file noting or record in respect of land of the appellant was produced. It however, filed an affid of Executive Engineer, Water Service Division Narwana which merely referred to another judgment in respect of other lands situated in Mundri Fatehpur CRF in which some decision had been taken but not in respect of the land of the appellant. The aforesaid shortcoming in the affidavit was also noticed by this Court in the order dated 28.08.2019. On the said date the counsel for the State sought further time however till date neither any material nor records relating to the land of the appellant has been produced by the respondent. As such, this Court is left with no option, but an adverse inference against the respondent favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I Needless to say, the above said Full Bench judgments judgment in case of Suraj Bhan supra for the respondents. It may also be pointed out that in view of the above law of this Court, a coordinate Bench of this vide order dated 05.09.2018 specifically granted time to the State Counsel to refer to the record spelling out the reasons for not confirming the auction in respect of the suit land in which the appellant was highest said liberty granted, the respondent did not produce the record relating to the land in question in respect of which the appellant was the highest bidder. No file noting or record in respect of land of the appellant was produced. It however, filed an affidavit of Executive Engineer, Water Service Division Narwana which merely referred to another judgment in respect of other lands situated in Mundri Fatehpur CRF in which some decision had been taken but not in respect of aid shortcoming in the affidavit was Court in the order dated 28.08.2019. On the said date the counsel for the State sought further time however till date neither any relating to the land of the appellant has been As such, this Court is left with no option, but an adverse inference against the respondent. Nothing has been 20 favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, I Needless to say, the above said Full Bench judgments supra law , a coordinate Bench of this vide order dated 05.09.2018 specifically granted time to the State confirming the auction in respect of the suit land in which the appellant was highest the respondent respect of which the appellant was the highest bidder. No file noting or record in avit of Executive Engineer, Water Service Division Narwana which merely referred to another judgment in respect of other lands situated in Mundri Fatehpur CRF in which some decision had been taken but not in respect of aid shortcoming in the affidavit was Court in the order dated 28.08.2019. On the said date the counsel for the State sought further time however till date neither any relating to the land of the appellant has been As such, this Court is left with no option, but . Nothing has been SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document produced to indicate that any regard to the land sought to be purch the above cited precedents, this Court is bound to hold that the respondent not to go ahead with the auction and to reject the highest bid of the appellant is arbitrary and capricious. 25. dated 23.02 landowners would be returned to the been acquired has been fulfilled. provided that 26. acquiring the land i.e. for setting up brick kilns has been achieved long ago. Thus, in the first instance the land into the land by the Collector. the Award, the land was put to auction by the respondents. Again undisputedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction instead of allotting the land to the appellant, auction was not confirmed by the respondents for unknown reasons. produced to indicate that any decision or reason exist regard to the land sought to be purchased by the appellant the above cited precedents, this Court is bound to hold that the respondent not to go ahead with the auction and to reject the highest bid of the appellant is arbitrary and capricious. It is also to be appreciated that dated 23.02.1968 (Ex.P-1), stipulated that land acquired from the landowners would be returned to them after the purpose been acquired has been fulfilled. In the said that: “However, the land is acquired permanently but returned to the owners when no longer required by the department as required under rules at the rate to be assessed by the Collector, when it may be proposed to be released, being no longer required.” The canal has been completed long back and purpose of acquiring the land i.e. for setting up brick kilns has been achieved long ago. in the first instance it was incumbent upon the respondents the land into the land of plaintiff i.e. landowners at the rate to be assessed by the Collector. However, in contravention of the abovesaid condition the Award, the land was put to auction by the respondents. Again undisputedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction instead of allotting the land to the appellant, auction was not confirmed by the respondents for unknown reasons. No letter/evidence decision or reason exists on the file with ased by the appellant. Thus, in view of the above cited precedents, this Court is bound to hold that the stand of the respondent not to go ahead with the auction and to reject the highest bid of the appellant is arbitrary and capricious. to be appreciated that the acquisition Award that land acquired from the after the purpose for which it has In the said Award it was specifically However, the land is acquired permanently but it may be returned to the owners when no longer required by the department as required under rules at the rate to be assessed by the Collector, when it may be proposed to be released, being The canal has been completed long back and purpose of acquiring the land i.e. for setting up brick kilns has been achieved long ago. upon the respondents to return of plaintiff i.e. landowners at the rate to be assessed However, in contravention of the abovesaid condition in the Award, the land was put to auction by the respondents. Again undisputedly, appellant was the highest bidder in the auction. However, instead of allotting the land to the appellant, auction was not confirmed by o letter/evidence has been led by 20 on the file with in view of the stand of the respondent not to go ahead with the auction and to reject the highest ward that land acquired from the which it has ward it was specifically may be returned to the owners when no longer required by the department as required under rules at the rate to be assessed by the Collector, when it may be proposed to be released, being The canal has been completed long back and purpose of acquiring the land i.e. for setting up brick kilns has been achieved long ago. to return of plaintiff i.e. landowners at the rate to be assessed in the Award, the land was put to auction by the respondents. Again . However, instead of allotting the land to the appellant, auction was not confirmed by by SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the respondent purchased by the appellant in the impugned judgments and decrees shows that have misinterpreted the two letters dated 14.08.2006 (Ex. D 10.08.2007 (Ex. D appellant. These letters have already been discussed above. action taken by the respondent to refund the earnest money and to take back the possession of the land is patently illegal and liable to be 27. impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. 28. 12.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: the respondents that any decision was taken in respect of the land purchased by the appellant in the auction held on 15.12.2003. the impugned judgments and decrees shows that have misinterpreted the two letters dated 14.08.2006 (Ex. D 10.08.2007 (Ex. D-II/B), which are not in respect of the land of the These letters have already been discussed above. action taken by the respondent to refund the earnest money and to take back the possession of the land is patently illegal and liable to be In view of the above, present appeal is impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No that any decision was taken in respect of the land the auction held on 15.12.2003. A perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees shows that both the courts below have misinterpreted the two letters dated 14.08.2006 (Ex. D-II/A) and , which are not in respect of the land of the These letters have already been discussed above. Thus, the action taken by the respondent to refund the earnest money and to take back the possession of the land is patently illegal and liable to be set aside. In view of the above, present appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 20 that any decision was taken in respect of the land A perusal of both the courts below II/A) and , which are not in respect of the land of the Thus, the action taken by the respondent to refund the earnest money and to take The impugned Judgments and Decrees passed by both the courts below are set SUNENA 2025.05.19 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document