Sharik Ahuja v. State Of Haryana & ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 07.01.2020
1) CWP-21486-2017 (O & M) Sharik Ahuja
2) CWP-28549-2017 (O & M) Shakuntla Rani and Anr.
3) CWP-29093-2017 (O & M) Devki Rani
4) CWP-29096-2017 (O & M) Gourav Kumar and Anr.
5) CWP-29120-2017 (O & M) Shubham Goyal and Anr.
6) CWP-29389-2017 (O & M) Ishwar Singh and Anr.
::2::
7) CWP-29621-2017 (O & M) Sanjeev Kumar
8) CWP-29624-2017 (O & M) Karambir and Ors.
9) CWP-29656-2017 (O & M) Rajesh Kumar and Anr.
10) CWP-10664-2019 (O & M) Baz Singh and Anr.
11) CWP-23772-2017(O & M) Anoop Kumar
12) CWP-25365-2017 (O & M) Jiwan Lal and Anr.
13) CWP-25774-2017 (O & M) Bhupender Singh and Ors.
::3::
14) CWP-25770-2017 (O & M) Sushil Kumar Goyal
15) CWP-28002-2017 (O & M) Mehanga Singh and Ors.
16) CWP-25364-2017 (O & M) M/s Maa Bhagwati Foods
17) CWP-26818-2017 (O & M) Manjinder Singh and Anr.
18) CWP-26860-2017 (O & M) Gaurav Jain
19) CWP-29770-2017 (O & M) Jagmender Singh
20) CWP-29784-2017 (O & M) Vijay Singh
::4::
21) CWP-4190-2018 (O & M) Jagmender Singh
22) CWP-9585-2019 (O & M) Richh Pal Singh
23) CWP-10703-2019 (O & M) Netar Pal
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G., Haryana with Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3HSAMB. Mr. Nikunj Dhawan, Advocate, for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.4 (in CWP-21486).
Mr. Abhay Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3 (in CWP Nos.29770, 29784 of 2017 and 4190 of 2018).
***** RAJAN GUPTA , J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of a bunch of twenty three writ petitions. For brevity, facts have been taken from this case i.e. CWP-214862017 wherein petitioner has sought quashing of orders dated 31.10.2014
::5::
and 28.01.2016, Annexures P-17 and P-19 respectively whereby the amount deposited by the petitioner at the time of auction of plot has been ordered to be refunded after deducting 10% of total sale price and appeal against the said order has been dismissed.
Stand of the petitioners is that they were not aware of the order passed in CWP-2432-2014 titled as 'Satpal and another versus State of Haryana and others' wherein plots/booths were to be allotted on preferential/concessional basis. It was, thus, directed that claim of the petitioners would be decided prior to confirmation of the auction in case of other allottees. In view of order dated February 10, 2014, passed in Satpal Singh's case (supra), the auction could not have been confirmed in favour of auction purchasers. Consequently, allotment letters could not have been issued.
In view of the above, it was directed that the allotment letters issued in favour of successful bidders including the bidders of plots sold pursuant to open auction held on February 11, 2014 would remain suspended subject to final adjudication of the claims of the auction purchasers. As per them, Rule 5A of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable) Rules, 2000 could not have been invoked by the respondents in view of peculiar circumstances of the case.
It appears that pursuant to directions given by this court in separate writ petitions, the respondents were directed to consider the entire issue and pass speaking orders. Orders passed in the instant writ petitions have been perused. Same have been passed by various authorities. Admittedly, some of the orders cannot be said to be a speaking orders as all
::6::
issues raised by the petitioners have not been dealt with therein. Besides, it appears that at the time of decision of CWP-23864-2015, Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana had examined the matter and State took a stand before this court accordingly. In view of same, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned State counsel submits that all the above matters can be reconsidered by the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Haryana and fresh order shall be passed by him within three months from today after considering the issues raised hereinabove as well as the orders passed in CWP-23864-2015.
In view of the statement made by learned State counsel, the abovesaid writ petitions are hereby disposed of. It is made clear that orders passed by the various authorities earlier, shall not stand in the way of the Financial Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary while passing fresh orders. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (KARAMJIT SINGH) JUDGE January 07, 2020 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No