##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

213 LPA-1142-2021 (O&M)

Decided on : 04.02.2026

SATNAM SINGH

...Appellant

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Arvinder Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the impugned order

dated 02.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the

cancellation of the auction which was in favour of the appellant but was

cancelled subsequently, has not been interfered with on the ground that

respondent No.8, subsequent to the auction proceedings, was prepared to

give to more amount as being offered by the appellant and that auction was

not conducted in the manner required on account of it being not proclaimed

by beat of drums.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that once, respondent

No. 8 never participated in the auction proceedings qua cutting of the trees

standing on the land belonging to the gram panchayat and the highest bid of

Rs.46.27 lakhs for cutting of said tress was offered by the appellant which

offer was accepted, after which, the appellant started exercising his

jurisdiction by cutting the trees but in the meanwhile, an offer of Rs. 56

lakhs for the same auction was made by respondent No. 8 after which, the

contract entered into between the parties, i.e. the auction got canceled vide

1 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 12-02-2026 05:05:18 :::

2

LPA-1142-2021 (O&M)

letter dated 06.11.2020 (Annexure P-12), which is incorrect and unlawful.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that once, the

auction proceedings were finalized and work of cutting the trees had already

begun, stopping of the said work merely upon receiving another offer of

higher amount by respondent No. 8 is contrary to the settled principle of law.

Learned counsel further submits that merely upon receiving offer of higher

amount subsequent to the conclusion of the auction proceedings cannot be

made a ground for setting aside the auction proceedings and hence, the

learned Single judge should have interfered with the cancellation of the

auction proceedings initiated in favour of the appellant wherein the appellant

was granted the right to cut the trees upon a payment of Rs.46.27 Lakhs.

4. Learned counsel for the State submits that though the auction

was cancelled on the ground that 15 days notice was not given before

conducting the auction of cutting the trees therefore, as the process which

was envisaged under auction proceedings was not followed, hence, the same

was set-aside coupled with the fact that the respondents No. 8 had offered the

auction amount of Rs. 56 lakhs i.e. more than the amount offered by the

appellant, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge,

as well as the act of canceling of the auction proceeding by the authority

concerned is perfectly valid and legal.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the case file with their able assistance.

6. It may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law, an

auction cannot be cancelled merely upon asking of a stranger to the

proceedings, Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to

show that respondent No. 8 had ever participated in the auction proceedings

2 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 12-02-2026 05:05:18 :::

3

LPA-1142-2021 (O&M)

and it was only after the appellant started cutting the trees in terms of the

contract, he offered Rs. 10 lakhs more than what was offered by the

appellant.

7. As per settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 791-792 of 2022, titled as K. Kumara

Gupta versus Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple and

others, decided on 18.02.2022, wherein it has been held that re-auction of the

property cannot be allowed on the basis of an offer made by a third party

who has never participate