The main legal point established is that objections must be raised within the specified time frame as per the relevant rules, and authorities must consider relevant facts and legal aspects before making decisions.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) and the revisional order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders. Facts first.

The land in question was put to auction on 15.06.1988. One Sat Parkash was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.31.500/- but the sale was not confirmed. Land was put to re-auction on 24.11.1989. This time petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 32,000/-, however, the sale was not confirmed. The land was again auctioned on 30.03.1990 and the petitioner was the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.32,000/-, but this time again the sale was also not confirmed. The land was put to auction again on 19.10.1990. This time also the petitioner was the highest bidder @ Rs.34,000/- against the reserved price of Rs.30,000/-. The Tehsildar (sales) forwarded the matter to ASO (Sales) for confirmation of the sale in favour of the petitioner. However, in the meantime, respondent No. 3 submitted his objection on 03.11.1990 (Annexure P-1) offering to purchase the land @ Rs.40,000/-. However, respondent No. 3 did not appear before the ASO (Sales) when the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was passed. The land was ordered to be re- auctioned vide impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner filed revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the present writ petition.

2. While issuing notice of motion, re-auction was stayed. Pursuant to the notice of motion, written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents, controverting the allegations levelled by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was a cryptic order wherein no reason was assigned by ASO (Sales). He further submits that the objection raised by respondent No. 3, vide Annexure P-1 was time barred as the same was submitted beyond the period of 10 days provided in Rule 9 of the Rules for the Sales of Surplus Rural Properties. He next contended that even the revisional authority failed to appreciate the factual background of the case that this property did not fetch the adequate amount and it was put to auction for fourth time. Petitioner had been found to be the highest bidder in the three auctions including the last one. The revisional authority also failed to record any positive finding that any irregularity has taken place in the auction, referring to the relevant official record. He finally prays for setting aside the impugned orders by allowing the present writ petition. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the two judgments of this Court in Gurcharan Singh v. Punjab Financial Commissioner. Revenue, Punjab 1991 (1) RLR 334 and 1975 PLJ 128, Jagnandan Singh v. Union of India & Others.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that ASO (Sales) while passing the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2), was not obliged to assign any reason as the auction was cancelled in the public interest. He further submits that even if, the impugned order dated 22.04.1991 (Annexure P-2) was not an elaborate one by recording the reasons, that defect came to be cured by the revisional authority by passing the speaking order dated 13.05.1992 (Annexure P-3). He also submits that after receiving the objections vide Annexure P-1, another objection was received from respondent No. 3 on 31.12.1990, because of which the impugned orders came to be passed.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the cons