Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a dispute over evacuee property in Haryana after the State Government took over land vested in the Government of India for distribution to the public according to the procedure prescribed by the Government of Punjab. The appellant had come into possession of 30 bighas, 13 biswas of land but did not apply for allotment when applications were invited in 1962. In 1967, the land was sold at a public auction. Respondent No.5, Fateh Singh, emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3,800, and the sale was duly confirmed on February 27, 1967. Subsequently, time for making applications was extended, with the last date being February 22, 1968. The appellant made an application on January 5, 1968, seeking confirmation of sale of the land in his favor. A competent officer sold the land to the appellant and conveyed it by a registered sale deed dated June 26, 1968. However, by order dated February 5, 1974, the second respondent cancelled that sale on the ground that the land had already been sold to the fifth respondent on February 27, 1967 and therefore could not be resold to the appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the cancellation. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed Writ Petition No.4953 on October 4, 1979. The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the cancellation of the subsequent sale was vitiated by error of law. The appellant's counsel contended that although the fifth respondent was the highest bidder, he had not deposited the full consideration of the bid amount and no sale certificate had been issued to him, so the fifth respondent could not have become the owner of the extent of 13 bighas 13 biswas sold in the auction. The Supreme Court pointedly asked the counsel for the order of confirmation of sale dated February 27, 1967; in fairness, counsel stated that the order was not made part of the record. The Court reasoned that the confirmation of the sale conferred certain rights on the fifth respondent. Unless that sale was duly set aside, the property held and concluded could not be put to resale and sold to the appellant on June 26, 1968. Consequently, the cancellation of the sale by order dated February 5, 1974 could not be said to be vitiated by any error of law warranting interference. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Evacuee Property Allotment - Confirmed auction sale vests rights; subsequent sale invalid unless prior sale set aside - No specific Act cited - The appellant challenged cancellation of a subsequent sale deed dated June 26, 1968, arguing that the prior auction purchaser had not deposited full consideration and no sale certificate was issued. The Supreme Court noted that the confirmation order dated February 27, 1967 was not made part of the record; confirmation of the sale conferred rights on the prior purchaser. Held that unless the prior confirmed sale was duly set aside, the property could not be resold to the appellant, and the cancellation order dated February 5, 1974 was not vitiated by error of law (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the sale deed dated June 26, 1968 in favor of the appellant was vitiated by error of law when the land had already been sold and confirmed in auction to respondent No.5 on February 27, 1967.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Confirmed auction sale confers rights on auction purchaser
- property cannot be resold unless prior sale is duly set aside
- cancellation of subsequent sale is valid
- absent proof that prior sale was invalid.
