The Settlement Commissioner or other Officer under Rule 5(i) of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Property is bound to record relevant reasons for refusing to accept the highest bid or other bids, and that such reasons have not to be disclosed to the highest bidder. However, if an action refusing to accept the highest bid is challenged in a Court of law, then the reasons given for refusing to accept the bid have to be made available so as to enable the Court to find out if the same are relevant and germane to the non-acceptance of the bid.

PREM CHAND JAIN, J.

1. The only legal question that needs determination by this Beach may be formulated thus:-

Is the Settlement Commissioner or other 0ificer under Rule 5 (i) of the Rules for Sale of Surplus Rural Property, bound to give reasons for not accepting the highest or other bids?

2. The land in question measuring 50 Kanals 1 Marla situated in village Kamalpur Gadrian, Tahsil and District Karnal, was evacuee property. It was put to auction several times, but for one reason or the other the auction was not accepted. The last auction took place on 24th November, 1978. In this auction the petitioner and his brothers gave highest bid of Rs. 20,400.00 . A sum of Rs. 2,550.00 was deposited as earnest money/sale proceeds of the aforesaid property vide Receipt No. 94, Book No. 1600 dated 24th November, 1978. It appears that soon after the auction, a writ petition was filed in this Court on the ground that the land in dispute could not be put to auction as the same was not an evacuee property. To this writ petition, which was ultimately dismissed, the petitioner was not made a party. However, it appears that the Settlement Officer (Sales) without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, set aside the auction in his favour by passing the following order-

"The land is of Shamlat Deh. Hence, the sale is set aside."

3. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, but the same was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide his order dated 7th January, 1983. The petitioner through this petition has challenged the legality and propriety of the order of the Settlement Officer (Sales) and the order of respondent No. 1 passed on 7th January, 1983.

4. The petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents. In the return filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Haryana, Rehabilitation Department, the averments made in the petition on merits have been controverted. However, certain preliminary objections have also been taken, out of which, the one which needs specifc mention reads as under:-

"That this highest bid of Rs. 20,400.00 offered by the petitioner along with his brothers S/shri Natha Ram, Ram Kishan and Baljit on 24-11-1978 for the land in dispute has not been confirmed. This Hon ble High Court in a case reported in AIR 1983 Punj and Har 57 has held as under:- As under a rule relating to the sale of Package Deal Property, the highest bid offered by the purchaser at the time of auction was subject to approval by the Settlement Officer or the Settlement Commissioner, where the Settlement Officer and Settlement Commissioner declined to approve the highest bid the order declining to approve of the highest bid was not liable to be set aside.

5 When the matter came up for arguments before the Motion Bench, the learned counsel for the State, pressed the aforementioned preliminary objection. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Bench did not find itself in agreement with the view taken in State of Haryana V/s. Asha Ram, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 57. Consequently, the petition was admitted to hearing by a Full Bench. That is how we are seized of the matter.

6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Settlement Officer is bound to give reasons for declining to accept the highest or other bids and that those reasons have not to be extraneous or irrelevant. In other words what was sought to be argued was that the Settlement Officer has no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the highest or other bids on arbitrary or whimsical grounds and in case an order refusing to accept the highest or other bids is challenged in a Court of law, then the appropriate authority is bound to disclose the reasons which weighed with it for not accepting the bid. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submitted that the Settlement Officer is not under any obligation to give reasons for declining to accept the highe