IMPORTANT POINT
Auction sale--Rank trespasser--Could not challenge the auction made in favour of the highest bidder.

Ajay Tewari, J.:- This petition has been filed for challenging orders Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7 dated 30.3.1983, 12.3.84 and 29.9.87 respectively, whereby the auction of a plot of land measuring 124 square yards odd, comprised in Khasra No.188. min., situated in village Tikhowal Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, in favour of respondent No.3 was upheld.

2. The petitioner alleges that he had been in possession and is residing in the disputed property since 1969 and that he had moved an application to respondent No.2 for transfer of the property in his favour on the basis of his possession. Instead of allowing the application, the respondent No.2 ordered the auction of the property for 31.10.1979. It is alleged that this order was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Commissioner and, on 23.10.1979 the following order was passed:-

“The appellant has deposited Rs.200/- as D/Charges on demand. It is not clear as to why the house built by him on which D/charges have been paid has been scheduled for auction. The appellant is a Harijan and has a prima facie case for the transfer of the plot under dispute. Status quo be maintained till decision the appeal.”

It is further alleged that despite the above mentioned order the property had been put to auction on 31.10.1979. The petitioner participated in the said auction and gave the highest bid of Rs.3150/- against the reserved price of Rs.3112/- and deposited 20% thereof then and there. After the auction the petitioner moved an application before the Settlement Commissioner protesting the auction and claiming that the property should have been transferred to him on the basis of his possession. This application of the petitioner was rejected and the property directed to be reauctioned by an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 3.6.1981.

3. In the second auction held on 30.6.82 the respondent No.3 gave the highest bid of Rs.37,200/-. The petitioner filed objections and an appeal, both dated 13.7.82, before the Settlement Commissioner. This appeal was rejected by order dated 30.3.1983 and a revision against the said order was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by order dated 12.3.1984. The petitioner then approached the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) with a petition under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 which was rejected with the following observations:-

“I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on both sides and have also gone through the record. The record shows that the petitioner applied for the transfer of the property in dispute for the first time on the 30th October, 1979. He has not been able to establish that any application had been submitted by him before the prescribed date of 31st December 1977. The fact that he participated in the first auction on the 13th October,1979 and also paid damage charges for the use and occupation of the property after the date of auction confirms that no application had been made before the target date. Further, having once participated in the auction proceedings, the petitioner could not plead that the auction in his favour should be set aside and the property transferred to him on the basis of possession and construction. His request was rightly declined by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 3rd June, 1981. As no challenge to the said order was made, it attained finality. Besides, as per provision of Rule 90(10) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the Settlement Commissioner was within his discretion not to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner, without assigning any reason. I am also satisfied that the sale in favour of respondent No.3 does not suffer from any irregularity. The bid sheet shows that seven persons offered bids and as many as 150/200 persons were present at the spot. The fact that area measuring 124 sq. yards 4 sq. feet which fetched Rs.3150/­ only, in the earlier auction had been sold i