Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

g.r. majithia, j.1. the petitioners have impugned the order of financial commissioner, haryana, dated august 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the commissioner, dated may 2, 1979 in this writ petition under articles 226/227 of the constitution of india.2. the facts :the petitioners' father, shri ram kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and gulab singh, report in the roznamcha was entered at serial no. 119 on november 22, 1952. the mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on march 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a civil suit by one of the sons, namely, mai ram the suit was decreed on january 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of civil courts decree was sanctioned on april 21, 1957. the collector, hissar, vide his order dated march.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

G.R. Majithia, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The Facts :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '624764',
			'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
			'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Facts :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '624764',
		(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mai Ram and anr Vs the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana Revenue Department and ors - Citation 624764 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '624764',
		'acts' => 'Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 226 and 227',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980',
		'appellant' => 'Mai Ram and anr.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Challenge as to  Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto, State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. The State is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is State. Though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel State to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. Similarly, where breach of contract at hands of State violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions  or public duty, judicial review of such State action is inevitable. Likewise, if State enters into a contract in consonance with Article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a State or a Statutory Authority. For these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the Government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of Article 299 was entered into between the parties. Hence, if Government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the Government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like Larger Public Interest. The State, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. As a necessary corollary thereto State cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 [C.A. No. 68/1986]. Articles 14 & 300A: Government contract  Noon-acceptance of highest bid   Held, It does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder  Highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale  certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under Article 300A  Right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [AIR 1984 P&H 282 (FB) Explained]
Articles 14 & 226: Government Contract  Rejection of highest bid  Held,  Highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of State Government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons  However in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as State action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law -  The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sudhir Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1992-10-31',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' G.R. Majithia, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.</p><p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.</p><p>2. The Facts :</p><p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.</p><p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:</p><p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1993)103PLR501',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Civil;Limitation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '624764',
	(int) 1 => 'mai-ram-vs-government-department'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/624764/mai-ram-vs-government-department'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>G.R. Majithia, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have impugned the order of Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated August 10. 1979 affirming in revision the order of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the <a>Constitution of India</a>.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Facts :',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The petitioners' father, Shri Ram Kishan, gifted 3/4th of his total holdings to his sons, the petitioners and Gulab Singh, Report in the roznamcha was entered at Serial No. 119 on November 22, 1952. The mutation entered on the basis of the gift was rejected on March 29, 1954 necessitating the filing of a Civil Suit by one of the sons, namely, Mai Ram The Suit was decreed on January 11, 1957 and mutation on basis of Civil Courts decree was sanctioned on April 21, 1957. The Collector, Hissar, vide his order dated March 24, 1961 declared 48.39 standard acres of land as surplus with the petitioners' father. The order provided that Form F be prepared accordingly and a copy thereof be sent to all concerned under rule 7 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956. The petitioners were not issued any notice by the Collector, Agrarian before determining the surplus area of the petitioners' father. After passing the order, he did not communicate Form 'F' to the petitioners The petitioners aggrieved against this order filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The same was rejected on May 2, 1979 on the ground that it was beyond limitation The order of the Commissioner was assailed in revision before the Financial Commissioner and the same was rejected on August 10, 1979 and this order is under challenge in this petition.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Collector, Agrarian, Hissar before separating the permissible area from the surplus area of the petitioner's father. The petitioners' title to the land gifted to them stood established under the Civil Court decree, dated January 11, 1957. This decree was given due effect in the record of rights when the mutation on its basis was sanctioned on April 21.1957. The Collector decided surplus area case of the petitioner's father on March 24, 1961. Prior to this date, the petitioners were recorded as right holders in the revenue record Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 (for short, the Rules) envisages that Circle Revenue Officer has to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons before forwarding his report to the Collector. Report has to be prepared keeping in view the entries made by the Patwari in Form D or Form DD as provided under the Rules. The transfer in favour of the petitioners is reflected in Form D prepared by the Circle Kanungo It was imperative for the Circle Revenue Officer to issue notices to the petitioners before forwarding his report to the Collector. The Circle Revenue Officer failed to do so. The report made by him obviously suffers from patent illegality. The Special Collector on consideration of the report and after hearing the persons interested has to order preparation of a statement in Form F. This Statement indicated the total holdings, permissible and surplus area, of the tenant or the land owner. The total holdings of the landlord has to be determined under the Punjab Security of land Tenures Act. Transfers of land in excess of permissible area made under the Act prior to July 30, 1958 are protected. If the transfer in favour of the petitioners is protected, then the area transferred to the petitioners has to be excluded from the total holdings of the land owners. The Collector Agrarian did not invite his attention to this settled preposition. (See in this connection, Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana, 1977 P. L. J. 230.) The order of the Collector is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the statute and this cannot be sustained. The right to file an appeal accrues from the date of communication of Form 'F' Since Form 'F' was, not served upon the petitioners, their appeal against the order of the Collector Surplus Area could not be dismissed being beyond limitation. The sine qua non for filing the appeal is the date of communication of Form 'F' under rule 6(7) of the Rules. Rule 6(8) of the Rules postulates that any person aggrieved by the order of the Collector can file an appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision. The decision to be communicated is the one in Form 'F' which is prepared under rule 6(6) of the Rules Since the decision was not communicated, the period of limitation for filing appeal has not arisen. The time for filing appeal only starts from the date of communication of the decision and not otherwise. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are patently in error in rejecting the appeal and the revision only on the ground that these were filed beyond limitation-:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. For the reasons recorded above the petition is allowed and the orders of the Collector, dated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner, dated May 2, 1979 and of the Financial Commissioner, dated August 10, 1979 are quashed. The Collector, Agrarian is directed to dispose Of the Surplus area case of the land owners in the light of the observations made above.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Civil;Limitation
Court	Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On	Oct-31-1992
Case Number	Civil Writ Petition No. 3208 of 1980
Judge	G.R. Majithia, J.
Reported in	(1993)103PLR501
Acts	Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1956 - Rule 6(3); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Appellant	Mai Ram and anr.
Respondent	The State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors.
Appellant Advocate	Sudhir Nehra, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	M.S. Bhinder, A.A.G.
Disposition	Petition allowed
Cases Referred	Shmt. Jaswant Kaur v. The State of Haryana

Mai Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana Through Secretary to Government Haryana, Revenue Department and ors. - Court Judgment