Dismissed

Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2012CWP/11805/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil writ petition challenging the auction of public land, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's claim that the property should have been leased rather than sold. The court found the auction valid and held that the petitioner abused the legal process by falsely claiming willingness to pay Rs. 10 crores.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to pay costs of Rs. 25,000; auction proceedings validated.

Sanjiv Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 11805 of 2011(O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No. 11805 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 03.05.2012

Sanjiv Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Jaswinder Singh ,DAG, Punjab Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶12

Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for respondent no.4.

¶13

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶14

The petitioner has impugned the auction proceedings held on 11.4.2011 (Annexure P-7) whereby the land measuring 15 kanals and 18 marlas owned by the respondent no.3 has been sold to respondent no.4.

¶15

The principle ground on which the said auction proceedings and the consequent intended sale in favour of the respondent no.4 has been challenged is that there is violation of Rule 4 of the Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Sale, Lease and other Alienation of Property and Public Places) Rules, 1964 in particular Rule 4, the relevant portion of which is extracted herebelow:-

¶16

4. (1) A Panchayat Samiti or a Zila Parishad shall not ordinarily sell any property or public place belonging to or vested in it, if it can be leased out or profitably maintained.”

¶17

CWP No. 11805 of 2011(O&M) 2

¶18

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a property which was capable of being leased out and managed profitably should not have been sold and the decision taken by the Panchayat Samiti as reflected in Annexure P-2 suffers from fallacy of erroneous reasoning as the property possibly could have been leased out and maintained profitably rather than put to auction.

¶19

In Annexure P-2 which is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti proposing to sell this land, it is proposed that a rest house exists on the land in question which is in a bad shape and is lying unused. The fears of it falling into unauthorized occupants and also the possibility of being put to a better use by constructing shops, buildings were the prime reasons leading to the decision to auction the property.

¶20

In the auction proceedings in which the petitioner himself was a unsuccessful bidder and a participant, the property was sold for a sum of Rs.8.03 crores.

¶21

Before this Court when the petition came up for hearing for the first time, petitioner projected that he was willing to offer Rs. 10 crores and the property has been sold for low price.

¶22

Taken in by the projection of the petitioner, this Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the auction and passed an interim order to test the bona fides of the petitioner which was to the following terms:-

¶23

“The petitioner shall deposit Rs.2.5 crores which

¶24

he undertakes to do within one week and offer bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.7.5 crores within one month. Both the conditions are required to be fulfilled. There shall be interim order of restraint against any change in the character of the

¶25

CWP No. 11805 of 2011(O&M) 3

¶26

property if the amount is deposited within a week. The order will operate only on the deposit of Rs.2.5 crores within the time stipulated above. If the remaining condition of furnishing a bank guarantee within 4 weeks from today is not complied with, the restraint that shall be operative on the fulfillment of the first condition shall stand vacated.”

¶27

The petitioner did not honour the commitment which led to the

¶28

interim stay being vacated.

¶29

Today when the case was taken up a specific question was put to the petitioner whether he is still willing to buy the property at the price projected by him i.e. Rs.10 crores. The candid answer of the petitioner was in the negative.

¶30

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petition is without any merit and rather it is an abuse of the process of law where the petitioner has deliberately tried to misled the Court by projecting that he was a stronger bidder and was willing to pay Rs. 10 crores. An impression was also created that the public property is being siphoned off at a throw away price.

¶31

Upon evaluation of the material before the Court, I am of the opinion that no fault can be found in the decision of the Panchayat Samiti to sell the land in case it has expressed its desire to put property to better use by constructing shops and other buildings entering into profitable ventures since the property is admittedly lying unused and vacant and exposed to rot.

¶32

In matters such as these it is the competent authority and the agencies involved in managing the affairs of Panchayat Samiti or Zila

¶33

CWP No. 11805 of 2011(O&M) 4

¶34

Parishad, as the case may be, whose decision has to be respected unless it is shown to be suffering from taint or arbitrariness. Merely because the petitioner perceives that it could have been used for some other purposes by leasing it out may not be the acceptable ground to off-set a valid and deliberated decision. The challenge, therefore, on this ground is without any basis. The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶35

Since the petitioner in the opinion of this Court has abused the process of law and has unnecessarily stalled the legitimate process pursuant to the auction proceedings, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-.

¶36

Ordered accordingly.

¶37

Let the costs be recovered from the petitioner. CJM, Faridkot shall ensure the recovery of the costs which shall be deposited with the Punjab Legal Services Authority.

¶38

(Mahesh Grover) Judge

¶39

May 3, 2012 rekha

Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Food and Supply Deptt. Class IV Employees Vs State of Punjab

Yog Raj Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunil Kumar Jakhar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vishnu Dev Shukla Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rakesh Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Subhash Chander Vs Deputy Commissioner & Ors.