2008 PLP 2055 (YLR)

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--Briefly respondent was offered land measuring 200-K situated in Chak No.505/ TDA, Tehsil Kot Addu, District Muzaffar garh by the petitioners for sale through an open auction held on 30-10-1984. The reserve price for the same was fixed as Rs.35,000. The respondent participated in the auction and was declared as successful bidder. His offer for the purchase of land was in the tune of Rs.54,200. This auction was recommended by the Auctioneer subject to approval of the competent-authority, who did not approve the same vide order dated 19-11-1987 and 30-11-1992. 2. Aggrieved from non-confirmation of the said auction, a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff/respondent is owner in possession of the suit-land being the highest bidder was filed. The petitioners entered his appearance but vide order dated 28-7-1993 their right to file written statement was struck down by the learned trial Court under Order VIII, rule 10, C.P.C. and suit proceeded ex parte. Despite learned trial Court preferred to dismiss the suit observing it barred by time. The respondent aggrieved from judgment and decree of the learned trial Court filed an appeal to the District Judge, Muzaffar garh on 19-3-2001 and the said lower appellate Court vide order dated 23-1-2003 accepted the same and decreed the suit as prayed for. Hence this civil revision. 3. It is argued by the petitioners that the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh passed the judgment and decree date 23-1-2003 against the law, which is material irregularity. Similarly the learned Court of Civil Judge by order dated 28-7-1993 struck down the right of defence which is against the law. No order could be passed against the Government without waiting the expiry of at least three months whereas the suit was filed without a notice to the Government/ petitioner. Since no express direction has been issued to the petitioner and unless direction is not issued to this effect, the striking of the defence was liable to be set aside. That it has wrongly been observed that the suit of the respondent is within time because the order dated 19-11-1987, by which non-confirmation of the auction was challenged, the suit was filed in the year 1993 even after expiry of six years. The provided Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was the relevant and the learned trial Court had earlier rightly dismissed the suit being time barred. In the Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 suit was to be filed within one year and the same was the view of the learned Civil Judge that the suit was barred by time, whereas the District Judge, Muzaffargarh has failed to apply his mind in the light of Article 14 of the Limitation Act, that it was barred by time matter. That even on the facts, learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh has failed to take into notice that the basic condition of auction was the reserved price which was fixed as Rs.35,000. That the competent-authority was empowered to disagree with the bid and respondent was not issued any notice to deposit the remaining amount and even not put into possession. In this sense, he is an unauthorized cultivator. That the Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh has failed to look into the legal aspect of the matter that in the absence of confirmation of the auction in favour of respondent without any notice the decree could not be passed and held as owner of the suit property. 4. Respondent's counsel argued that the land in question was sold through auction and the District Collector was competent to fix the reserve price, which was fixed as Rs.35,000. That it was advertised through press. The petitioner was highest bidder which was in Rs.54,200. The 1/4th amount was deposited at time of auction. The confirmation of the bid was recommended by the auction committee. The possession was also deli vered. The commissioner on 19-11-1987 cancelled the auction on the ground that the bid amount was less than the reserved price. The sanction was not granted mistakenly as the bid amount was higher than the reserved price. The bid was final in the amount of Rs.54,200, while the reserve price was Rs.35,000. The respondent filed an appeal to the commissioner who without application of his mind agreed with the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. The Board of Revenue dismissed the review petition on the ground of jurisdiction. The respondent constrained to file the civil suit for his right and claim. That in this case, Article 120 of the Limitation Act, shall be applicable, because respondent consumed time in the legal forum and exhausted that. He had made every struggle for the right. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In this case, the main question involved is whether the Deputy Commissioner was competent to accept or reject the auction bid. The answer may be that, he was competent to do so without assigning any reason. But in the case in hand, case was referred to Additional Commissioner who rejected the claim on the ground that the auction bid was less then the reserved price. This ground to not approve the auction, was not correct because the reserve price was fixed by the auction committee and it even was reconfirmed and the highest bid was much more than the reserved price, therefore, the duty of the concerned authorities to justify the rejection was not there. The fact and material before was otherwise because in this case, the bid was in the sum of Rs.54,200 whereas the reserved price was Rs.35,000. Although the Commissioner was empowered even to reduce the reserved price if the highest bid is found less than the reserved price but again the case of the respondent was different because firstly the bid was much more than the reserved price and the reserved price was also fixed by the auction committee after verification time and again. The respondent complied with the terms and conditions and deposited 1/4th at once and remaining thereafter and also converted the land in cultivating position. On the point of limitation, it is found that the authorities concerned did not act within the power and four corners of their duty but have acted with mala fide and against the record hence this act of the concerned authorities was ultra vires, without jurisdiction, void and in excess of their jurisdiction. In view of the situation, Article 14 of the Limitation Act, was not applicable to the case of the petitioners and the case of the respondent would be covered within the Article 120 of the Limitation Act a residuary clause provides. The respondent has made effort to approach the next form and concerned higher authorities by filing a revision petition despite no remedy was provided. The suit originally was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge by way of error in law and application of mind as well. The ground for rejection of the bid has already been observed as ultra vires and with mala fide to cancel the auction as the highest bid was more than the reserved price and the case of the respondent was not on the lower side from reserved price which was made the ground for rejection. The respondent has rightly approached the Civil Court and Civil Court had jurisdiction where order and matter is based on mala fide, ultra vires and void would be. As far as strucking off right of defence is concerned, the petitioner was afforded many opportunities to produce the written statement despite availing these, failed to file. The right of defence was rightly strucked off and this order was not challenged anywhere. Hence the claim of the respondent. remain un-rebutted, supported by documentary evidence as well. The assertion of the respondent that the .approval of the auction bid was not granted on the flimsy ground, therefore, being a highest bidder and have had paid the whole consideration. He is also in possession and claims to have converted the same into cultivating position and invested a substantial amount is justified and found correct, hence appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-1-2003 was justified to pass the impugned decree in accordance with the facts and law. Therefore, no material irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice could be pointed out to justify the interference through the civil revision. The petition stands dismissed. H.B.T./P-9/L Petition dismissed.