Judgment:
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
1. Invoking the provisions of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have directed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned orders dated 3.6.1987, 9.6.1987, 5.4.1986 and 9.3.1989 (Annexures P1 to P4) respectively.
2. The facts, barely needed, relevant for disposal of present writ petition and emanating from the record, are that the land measuring 6 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 1311 and 1312 situated in urban area of Palwal was described as evacuee property and it vests in the custodian of Government automatically by operation of law under Section 4 of the East Punjab (Evacuee) Administration of Property Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1947 Act') and Section 8(2-A) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1954 Act'). It was put to auction on 28.11.1985. As Siri Chand-respondent No. 4 was highest bidder, so it was allotted to him. The auction was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana on 5.4.1986. Respondent No. 4 deposited the balance sale price. Since the petitioners were in unauthorized occupation of the land in dispute, so notices under Section 19 of the 1954 Act were issued to them. The petitioners filed the reply to the notices and after hearing them, the Tehsildar (Sales) ordered their eviction vide order 6.8.1986.
3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 24 of the 1954 Act for setting aside the auction in favour of respondent No. 4 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, which was dismissed vide order dated 3.6.1987 (Annexure P1). The revision petition filed by them was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue and Secretary to Government of Haryana vide order dated 9.3.1989 (Annexure P4).
4. The petitioners did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P4) and filed the present writ petition.
5. The case set up by the petitioners, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that one Udey Singh son of Charan Singh constructed six pacca shops on the land in dispute in or about the years 1973-74. Firstly, they took the shops from said Udey Singh on rent and subsequently, purchased the same from him. Thus, they are in possession of the same as owners, but they were surprised to receive the notices under Section 19 of the 1954 Act. In the wake of inspection of the file, it revealed that the property in dispute was put to auction on 28.11.1985 and was allotted to respondent No. 4. The auction was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 5.4.1986. The revision and the petition for setting aside the auction proceedings were stated to have been wrongly dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner vide orders (Annexures P1 and P4) respectively.
6. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the petitioners that they are purchasers of the land in dispute and the auction in favour of respondent No. 4 was illegal. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the petitioners challenged the impugned orders (Annexures P1 and P4), inter-alia, on the grounds that no proclamation for auction was issued, the land in dispute being urban area cannot be auctioned by the Tehsildar (Sales), the auction was collusive and fraudulent, adequate number of bidders were not associated, they were condemned unheard in utter disregard to the principle of natural justice and the same was without following the procedure laid down under the 1954 Act. That being so, the petitioners prayed for setting aside the orders (Annexures P1 and P4), being illegal and arbitrary in the manner indicated here-in-above.
7. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their joint written statement, while allottee-respondent No. 4 filed his separate written statement, inter alia, pleading preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of concealment of so many important facts and the actual possession was delivered to respondent No. 4 on June 29, 1987, wherein in the writ petition, the petitioners have wrongly stated that they were in possession.
8. On merits, the respondents claimed that since the land in dispute was owned by the Government and not by Udey Singh son of Charan Singh, so question of its letting and sale by him to the petitioners did not arise at all. It was reiterated that the land in dispute was rightly put to auction on 28.11.1985 after due proclamation and was allotted to respondent No. 4, who deposited the entire balance amount. As the petitioners were stated to be in unauthorized possession, so the notices under Section 19 of the 1954 Act were issued to them and after giving them opportunity of hearing, the competent authority ejected them vide order dated 6.8.1986 and possession of the disputed property was delivered to the auction purchaser vide rapat No. 511 dated 29.6.1987. The auction was conducted after due proclamation under Section 20 read with Rule 19 of the 1954 Act. Many persons participated in the bid and the bid proceedings contained their signatures.
9. Reiterating the pleadings contained in the written statement of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the respondent No. 4 has additionally pleaded that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the auction/sale in his favour. The respondents have specifically pleaded that the land in dispute, being an evacuee property, vested in the Government, it was so recorded in the revenue record and auction proceedings were conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 1954 Act and Rules framed thereunder. It will not be out of place to mention here that all the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to me, as there is no merit, therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.
11. As indicated earlier, the petitioners claimed that one Udey Singh son of Charan Singh was the owner, who let out the shops to them on rent and they subsequently purchased the same. On the contrary, according to the respondents, the land in dispute is an evacuee property, vests in the Government and was rightly allotted to respondent No. 4. Thus, it would be seen that the facts of the case are neither intricate nor much disputed.
12. Such, thus being the position on record, now the short and significant questions, though important, arise for determination in this writ petition, is that (i) whether the petitioners were the owners of the land in dispute having any locus standi to challenge the auction and (ii) whether there is any procedural irregularity in auction proceedings, which vitiates it in any manner.
13. The customary argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners that since Udey Singh son of Charan Singh was the owner of the property, which was let out by him to the petitioners on rent and subsequently they purchased the same, so the auction proceedings without giving them the notices were illegal, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. Because very heavy burden of proof was on the petitioners to prove that (i) Udey Singh son of Charan Singh was actual owner and was legally competent to let out and sell the disputed property to the petitioners and (ii) he has actually let out the same on rent to them and that they purchased it from him thus claiming themselves to be owners of the same. But, to me, they have utterly failed to product any material on record in this respect. Neither they produced any such material before the authorities under the Act nor there is any material brought on record of this petition even to suggest remotely, how, when and in what manner, said Udey Singh became its owner. How, when and in what manner, he had let out and sold the land to the petitioners. The evidence to prove whether Udey Singh had actually alienated the property to the petitioners and he (vendor) was legally competent to alienate the same to them, is totally lacking. Meaning thereby, the petitioners have withheld the best possible evidence to prove their title at any stage and in that eventuality, legal adverse inference is inevitable against them in this respect.
14. The matter did not rest there. The respondents have specifically pleaded in their written statement that the land in dispute, which was an evacuee property, was put to auction on 28.11.1985. It was so recorded in the revenue record. The competent authority auctioned the same in favour of respondent No. 4, the auction was confirmed and possession had already been delivered to him. Having completed all the codal formalities, it was allotted to him (respondent No. 4). Not only that, the petitioners have miserably failed to produce any material on record to prove their ownership as discussed hereinabove, even they did not dare to rebut the stand taken by the respondents by filing the replication or additional affidavit in this context. In the absence of any cogent evidence on record, it cannot possibly be held that the petitioners were the owners of the land in dispute at any point of time. Once, it is held that the petitioners were not the owners of the land in dispute, then they have no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings on that ground.
15. There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from different angle. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that the property in dispute was an evacuee property, described as such in the revenue record and it vested in the custodian/Government automatically by operation of law under the provisions of the Acts. The competent authority has auctioned the same in favour of respondent No. 4 after following the due procedure contained the Act and Rules framed thereunder. It is no body's case that the petitioners had participated in the auction proceedings conducted on 28.11.1985, which was confirmed on 5.4.1986. They filed the petition, which was disposed of by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order (Annexure P1). No other illegality or irregularity in the auction proceedings has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners.
16. As stated here-in-above, as neither the petitioners are proved to be owners of the land in dispute nor they participated in the auction proceedings, therefore, they cannot possibly be said to be aggrieved persons by the auction in any manner. Thus, seen from any angle and in that eventuality, to my mind, no relief can be granted to them at this belated stage under the present set of circumstances, particularly when the same had already duly been auctioned, auction was confirmed and possession had already been delivered to respondent No. 4.
17. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
18. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.