- (1.)In this letters patent appeal, the following facts are not in dispute.
(2.)A plot of land situated in village Garhi Ballab, Tehsil and District Rohtak, was auctioned on August 29, 1965, in favour of the petitioner and two others being the highest bidders by the Naib Tehsildar Sales, Jhajjar. A copy of the bid sheet and the report of the Naib Tehsildar are Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the writ petition. Balbir Singh, respondent No. 2, filed an objection petition against this sale before the rehabilitation authorities on the ground that he could not participate in the auction as he had gone for a medical check up and that the plot had been sold at a rate lesser than the market rate or the one he was willing to offer. The Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer, vide his report dated September 21, 1965, accepted these objections and held that there was a material irregularity committed in allowing the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who initially had offered bids separately in their own individual capacities to pool to purchase the plot. This irregularity, according to him, was good enough for setting aside the sale. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in assailing this order before the appellate and the revisional authorities. One of the contentions raised by him before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and which ultimately prevailed with the learned Single Judge, was that in view of the provisions of Rule 92 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955, the authorities concerned could not set aside the sale in his favour. While accepting the petition and setting aside the impugned orders of the rehabilitation authorities the learned Single Judge has recorded a firm finding that unless the authorities concerned could record a positive finding that a material irregularity or fraud had been committed in the publication or the conduct of the sale and that Balbir Singh, respondent had sustained a substantial injury on that account, the sale in favour of the petitioner could not be set aside in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Rule 92. It is this order of the learned Single Judge which is now sought to be assailed in this appeal.
(3.)The solitary submission of Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the Union of India and the rehabilitation authorities is that since the auction sale in favour of the petitioner had not been accepted or confirmed and no title in the property in question had thus passed on to him, he had no locus standi to assail the order of the Tehsildar Sales-cum-Managing Officer dated September 21, 1965 and the later orders affirming the same. In support of this contention of his he relies on M/s. Bombay Salt and Chemical Industries v. L.J. Johnson and others, 1958 AIR(SC) 289 and Gurbux Rai v. Fauja Singh and others, 1984 CurLJ 556. We have no dispute with the above noted proposition of law as propounded by the learned counsel that till the auction sale is confirmed in favour of a bidder, no title to the property passes in his favour, but this does not mean that the petitioner had no locus standi to assail the impugned orders setting aside the sale proceedings in his favour. It is beyond dispute that the rehabilitation authorities have passed the impugned orders in the purported exercise of their powers under Rule 92 referred to above. The contents and the tenor of their impugned orders make it manifestly clear. Undisputably these orders had been passed at the instance of Balbir Singh who filed the above-noted objections before these authorities. Rule 92(1) entitles a person desiring the setting aside of a sale of property made under Rule 90 or 91 if he can show by making an application to this effect to the Chief Settlement Commissioner or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf that any irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale had been committed. As per sub-rule (2), such an application can be made in cases where the sale had been made by public auction, wtihin seven days from the acceptance of the bid which in the instant case was done on August 29, 1965. The learned counsel is not in a position to refer to any other provision of law under which Balbir Singh could file his objection petition. We are fully satisfied that it is in exercise of the power under this rule that the authorities have set aside the auction sale in favour of the petitioner. This, however, could not be done as held by the learned Single Judge unless on the consideration of the facts alleged these authorities could record a firm finding that a 'material irregularity or fraud' had been committed 'in the publication or the conduct of the sale.' In the absence of such a finding the property could not be ordered to be re- auctioned or re-sold. Further, in the light of the proviso to this sub-rule, the sale in question also could not be set aside unless the said authorities could record a finding that the applicant (Balbir Singh, Objector) had sustained a substantial injury on account of the irregularity or fraud committed in the publication or the conduct of the sale. None of the authorities has recorded these findings. In the light of this we find no infirmity in the judgment under appeal.