High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 03 P&H CK 0199

Om Parkash vs Bhupinder Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 March 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Hemant Gupta, J · A.N. Jindal, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
LPA No. 405 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 348 words

Hemant Gupta, J.

CM No. 1055 of 2012

1.

Application is allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 1056 of 2012

Application is allowed. Annexures A/1 to A/4 is permitted to be taken on record.

CM No. 1054 of 2012

2.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA No. 405 of 2012

3.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.10.2011, whereby the auction in favour of Bhupinder Singh-respondent No. 1 was ordered to be confirmed and the impugned order passed by the Joint Secretary Rehabilitation-cum-Settlement Commissioner dated 25.10.1989 was set aside, dismissing objection petition filed by the appellant herein.

4.

In pursuance of the auction notice published in the month of January, 1989 (Annexure P-5), respondent No. 1 participated and was found the highest bidder. The description of the property as per the auction notice was inclusive of Khasra Nos. 54/17/25, 24 and 77/4.

5.

Appellant claims to be in possession of 17 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khasra Nos 54/17/2 (2-17), 24(7-0) and 77/4(8-0). Appellant claims to be in continuous possession of the land put to auction for the last 40 years. The grievance of the appellant is that there was mis-description of the land in the auction notice and therefore, he has not participated in the auction causing prejudice to his rights of participation in the auction proceedings.

6.

Learned Single Judge has rightly found that mis description in one of the khasra number is inconsequential and that auction cannot be set aside. As a matter of fact, from the auction notice, one can infer that the entire khasra No. 17, 25 and 24 were the part of auction process, whereas the appellant claims to be in possession of only part of khasra No. 17.

7.

Learned Single Judge has rightly found that there is no material irregularity or illegality in the auction proceedings which will confer any right to the appellant to seek annulment thereof. Dismissed.