Allowed

Diwan Chand & Yograj v. Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Govt Haryana Rehabilitation Department & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC30 Jul 2014CWP/2367/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Continuing a prior order, this court upheld the petitioners' right based on an earlier sale confirmed on 29.04.1986. Fixing the price at Rs 1500 per sq. yard with 12% interest, the court directed the payment to prevent forfeiture of rights in favor of the private respondent from a subsequent auction.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs 1500 per sq. yard plus 12% interest directed; prior sale confirmed contingent on payment; subsequent auction annulled if payment made, otherwise prior sale set aside.

Diwan Chand & Yograj Vs Financial Commissioner… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.2367 of 1991

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.2367 of 1991 Date of Decision.30.07.2014

¶5

Diwan Chand and another

¶6

......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Financial Commissioner, Revenue & Secretary to Government, Haryana and others ......Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. B.S. Wasu, Advocate for petitioner No.1.

¶10

Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for petitioner No.2.

¶11

Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

This order must be taken as continuation of the order already passed on 22.05.2014. The facts and the circumstances that have been brought forth already in the order on the said date will not, therefore, be reproduced again.

¶19

On the information sought from the Government, the State Secretary to Government of Haryana, Revenue and Disaster Management, Department has filed an affidavit setting out the facts that there were no circle rates at the relevant time in the year 1986 of the land in Panipat and he has set out details of six transactions of sales which had taken place during the relevant time. While we are concerned about a sale that had taken place on 29.04.1986, the Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.31 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.2367 of 1991

¶21

-2-

¶22

schedule has referred to sales that had taken place in the month of May, 1986 to August, 1986. The details are as under:-

¶23

H.No.	Regd. No.	Date	Area Sq. yds	Report/value	Value per sq. yds
351/9	367	19.05.1986	48.7	7000	143
579/9	1806	16.7.1986	30.5	12000	400
579/9	1807	16.7.1986	30.5	12000	400
137/9	2524	16.07.1986	37	4600	124
134/9	2525	16.07.1986	37	4600	124
579/9	3099	12.08.1986	12	25000	2083

¶24

While 37 square yards of land have been sold at ` 124/- per

¶25

sq. yd., a relatively smaller extent of 30 sq. yds had a still higher rate of 400/- and still further smaller extent of 12 sq. yds has fetched property @ 2083/- per square yards. It is possible to see that smaller the extent, dearer the property and consequently higher the price. I do not think, therefore, that even the principle of averaging will be appropriate. It is revealed that the very same property which was purported to be sold in the year 1991 fetched rate of ` 2800/- per square yard. I have already brought out the fallibilities in the auction notice that resulted in sale in favour of the petitioners and I have sought to bring out these details only to give priority in the right of purchase to the petitioners before the auction made in favour of the private respondent is confirmed. It is admitted by the State that in view of the writ petition filed and the interim order passed by this Court at the instance of the petitioners, the subsequent auction dated 19.02.1991 did not conclude and sale certificate had not been issued. In this case, however, the petitioners have secured a sale certificate after confirmation on 29.04.1986. Taking note of the sales of properties of

¶26

various extents and the sale price of what it has provided subsequently, I Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.31 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

CWP No.2367 of 1991

¶28

-3-

¶29

will fix a price at ` 1500/- per square yard for the property purchased by the petitioners and direct the same to be paid with interest @12% from the date when the auction was confirmed till date. The amount shall be calculated and remitted to the State on demand draft within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Any fault on their part would mean forfeiting the right to the property in favour of the private respondent in whose favour, the property was sold on 19.02.1991. Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered upholding the petitioners' right on the basis of earlier sale made and confirmed on 29.04.1986 subject only to the condition of payment of the amount as mentioned above. If the amount is not remitted in the manner indicated within the time stipulated, the auction held already on 29.07.1986 shall be taken as having been set aside and the auction made in favour of the private respondent on 19.02.1991 shall be taken as confirmed. If the amount is paid as directed, the obvious corollary shall also be that the subsequent auction held on 19.02.1991 shall be annulled and the petitioners' right would stand confirmed.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed on the above terms.

¶31

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶32

July 30, 2014 Pankaj*

¶33

Kamboj Pankaj Kumar 2014.07.31 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Diwan Chand & Yograj v. Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Govt Haryana Rehabilitation Department & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwan Chand & Yograj v. Financial Commissioner Revenue & Secretary to Govt Haryana Rehabilitation Department & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Sudesh Sharma and Ors. Vs Prahalad Kumar Garg and Anr.

(O&M)Nachhattar Kaur and Others Vs Sukhdev Singh and Others

Janak Singh Vs Pawan Kumar

Tejender Kaur Vs Surjeet Singh and Anr.

Raj Pal and Ors. Vs Chhabila Ram and Ors.

Mohar Singh Vs Vidya Devi