Nearly 45 years after a 32-kanal parcel of land was auctioned in Haryana for just Rs 6,000, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the cancellation of the allotment, finding that the original auction record appeared to have been manipulated by reducing the reserve price from Rs 11,200 to Rs 1,352 — barely one-eighth of its original value.
The dispute, which travelled through multiple rounds of litigation over four decades, revolved around November 1981auction of land located in Naraingarh tehsil of Ambala district. The matter was placed before the Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda after a Single Judge on February 26 dismissed the petition filed by appellant-allottee through her legal representatives.
Among other things, the Single Judge held the facts collectively indicated that the initial confirmation of
auction in the allottee’s favour “was more or less collusion between her and few officials”.
The Bench during the course of hearing was told that the land was put to auction on November 27, 1981, with a reserve price of Rs 11,200. The highest bid of Rs 6,000 was made by the appellant. Before the auction could be confirmed, the competent authority on January 30, 1982, raised objections while noting that the highest bid was below the reserve price and therefore could not be accepted.
The controversy began thereafter. “Thereafter, the bid of Rs 6,000 made by the appellant was accepted after the reserve price was reduced by cutting from Rs 11,200 to Rs 1,352 by recording a finding that the bid was more than the reserve price fixed,” the Bench was further told.
The Bench observed the bid offered was confirmed on June 9, 1982, followed by allotment letter. The court noted that, the successful bidder was required to pay the balance amount in 15 half-yearly instalments under the allotment conditions. However, no instalments were paid December 1986 onwards, resulting in default under the allotment terms.
Consequently, the land was re-auctioned in February 1988. This time, the reserve price was again fixed at Rs 11,200. Another bidder offered Rs 32,000 and the allotment was confirmed in his favour in March 1988.
Although the original allottee later deposited the overdue instalments in December 1988, the court noted that this occurred after the fresh auction had already been completed. The delayed payment was accepted by a clerk working in the Tehsildar’s office, following which the appellant claimed ownership over the land.
The Settlement Commissioner on June 1993, however, held that the original allotment was the result of manipulation of official records and upheld the subsequent auction. A writ petition challenging that order remained pending until February 2026, when it was dismissed by a Single Judge. The matter then reached the Division Bench through a Letters Patent Appeal.
Appearing before the Bench, the counsel for the appellants argued that the allottee could not be blamed for any discrepancy in the reserve price and further contended that the re-auction had been conducted without notice, in violation of principles of natural justice.
“Any allotment, which is a result of fraud and gives undue benefit to a beneficiary, such beneficiary cannot approach the Court raising an objection that there has been violation of the rules of
natural justice while withdrawing such allotment. It is only a person who has played the game according to the rules, can approach the Court for the redressal of the grievance,” the Bench ruled.
The court added it had already come on record that the acceptance of Rs 6,000 bid offered by the appellant was a “result of fraud/collusion between the officials and appellant”. She was allotted the land on a price which was half of the reserve price fixed by manipulating the record “which fact is clear from the naked eye upon perusal of the original record”.
“In February/March 1988, i.e. 36 years ago, the fresh auction process was completed… In said auction also, the reserve price was Rs 11,200 and the bid offered by a respondent was Rs 32,000, which offer was accepted. Hence, once subsequent auction process has already attained finality and has been confirmed by authorities 36 years ago, cannot be set aside at this point of time merely on the asking of the appellant who is concededly a defaulter of terms of allotment as well as a beneficiary of fraudulent allotment,” the Bench concluded.
