http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: JOG RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   122

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The appellant  appears to  have come into possession of 30 bighas,  13 biswas  of land.  Subsequently,  the  evacuee property vested in the Government of India was taken over by the  State   Government  for   distribution  to  the  people according to  the procedure  prescribed by the Government of Punjab. It  would appear  that in  1962,  applications  were invited for  allotment of the land as per that procedure and the appellant  had not  applied for  allotment. In 1967, the land came to be sold to the people at an auction. Respondent No.5 -  Fateh Singh  - appears  to have  become the  highest bidder for  a sum  of  Rs.3,800/-  and  the  sale  was  duly confirmed. Subsequently,  time was extened to the persons to make applications  and the  last date was February 22, 1968. Thereunder the  appellant came  to make an application dated January 5,  1968 for  confirmation of  sale of  land in  his favour by a sale. The competent officer sold the laid to the appellant and conveyed it by registered sale deed dated June 26, 1968.  That sale  came to  be cancelled  by order  dated February 5, 1974 passed by the second respondent on the ground that  the land was already sold to the 5th respondent on February  27, 1967 and hence the same could not be resold to the  appellant under  the aforesaid sale deed. Therefore, it  is   not  valid  order.  Calling  that  cancellation  in question, the  appellant came  to file  the writ petition in the High  Court. In Writ Petition No.4953 the Division Bench by order dated October 4, 1979 dismissed the petition. Thus, this appeal.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  contended that though the  respondent was  the highest  bidder, he  had not deposited the  full consideration  of the  bid amount; there was no  sale certificate  issued to  him and thereby the 5th respondent could not become the owner of the property to the extent of  13 bighas 13 biswas which was sold in the auction to him. The Division Bench was not right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the sale on the ground that it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

was already  put to auction in favour of the 5th respondent. When  we   pointedly  asked  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant for  the order  of confirmation  of sale  of  land dated February  27, 1967,  in fairness,  the learned counsel has stated  that the  said order  was not  made part  of the record. The  confirmation  of  the  sale  conferred  certain rights on  the 5th  respondent. Unless the sale was duly set aside, the sale property held and concluded could not be put to resale  and sold  to the appellant on June 26, 1968. As a consequence, the  cancellation of  the sale  by order  dated February 5,  1974 cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.