Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974: s. 5 read with s. 10(2)(e) 2 - Haryana Municipalities Management of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976 – r. 2(3), 2(4) – Auction sale – Inter-departmental communication and/or the notings on the file – Relevance of – Respondent filed suit for mandatory injunction to execute a sale deed on the ground that he is a bonafide purchaser on basis of the auction and is in possession as owner of the suit land – Case of the Municipal Committee that it is unable to execute the sale deed without proper sanction of the competent authority-State Government – Trial court decreed in favor of the respondent – Said order upheld in the first and second appeal – In appeal before this Court, case of the Municipal Council that the auction conducted in which the respondent was the highest bidder was not approved by the State Government, and that till such time the auction is confirmed, it would not confer any equitable and legal right to the respondent; and it would be only after the confirmation of sale and the letter accepting the bid is issued – Held: Sub-rule (ii) of r. 2(3) contemplates that no sale by auction would be valid until it has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner – Communication referred to by the respondent is not the communication by the Deputy Commissioner to the Municipality or to the respondent that the sale stands confirmed – It is an inter-departmental communication with no endorsement of the copy of the said communication to the respondent – Interdepartmental communication and/or the notings on the file are not the decisions of the State – Thus, the letter seeking approval of the State Government by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval granted by him, which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the court of law – Suit was not maintainable since there was no vested right with the respondent to claim such a decree merely on the basis of participation in the public auction; and even if the respondent had any right on the basis of an auction, he could at best sue for specific performance of the so-called agreement – Respondent was granted decree for mandatory injunction not only beyond the period of limitation but also in contravention of the statute and the rules framed thereunder – Judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside – Respondent is in possession, which is found to be illegal and without the authority of law – Municipality would take possession forthwith – Auction amount would stand forfeited towards the damages for the illegal occupation of the land for more than 20 years since the date of auction in contravention of law. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Haryana Municipalities Management of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976 contemplates two acts to be completed by the Deputy Commissioner, one of which is approval of conduct of sale which was granted on 25.10.1995. Thus, there is compliance as far as clause (i) of Rule 2(3) of the 1976 Rules is concerned. The other important provision is sub-rule (ii) of Rule 2(3) of the 1976 Rules which contemplates that no sale by auction shall be valid until it has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The communication dated 10.1.2007 (Ex P-34) referred to by the plaintiff is not the communication by the Deputy Commissioner to the Municipality or to the plaintiff that the sale stands confirmed. In fact, it is an inter-departmental communication with no endorsement of the copy of the said communication to the plaintiff. Thus, the reliance of the plaintiff on the communication dated 10.1.2007 (Ex.P/34) is not helpful to the argument raised by him as it is the inter-departmental communication from the Deputy Commissioner to the Director, Urban Local Body Department to seek approval but in the absence of any approval granted, no right would accrue. [Para 10][903-C-F
1.2 The letter seeking approval of the State Government by the Deputy Commissioner is not the approval granted by him, which could be enforced by the plaintiff in the court of law. [Para 17][908-C-D]
1.3 The suit was not maintainable for the reason that there was no vested right with the plaintiff to claim such a decree merely on the basis of participation in the public auction. Secondly, even if the plaintiff had any right on the basis of an auction, he could at best sue for specific performance of the so-called agreement. [Para 18][908-D-E]
1.4 The plaintiff has been granted decree for mandatory injunction not only beyond the period of limitation but in contravention of the statute and the rules framed thereunder. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below are set aside. The plaintiff is in possession, which is found to be illegal and without the authority of law. The Municipality shall take possession of land forthwith and furnish compliance report within three months. The amount of Rs.15,76,150/- shall stand forfeited towards the damages for the illegal occupation of the land for more than 20 years since the date of auction in contravention of law. [Paras 27 and 28][912-D-E]
Rajender Parshad & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors, AIR 1980 P&H 37; State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mehar Din, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 250 ; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 : [1962] Suppl. SCR 713 ; Union of India v. Avtar Singh (1984) 3 SCC
589 : [1984] 3 SCR 391; State of Orissa and Others v. Mesco Steels Limited and Another (2013) 4 SCC 340 : [2013] 2 SCR 245; Haryana Urban Development
Authority & Ors. v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited (2017) 4 SCC 243: [2017] 1 SCR 847 -referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.