Summary
A highest bidder obtained a mandatory-injunction decree requiring a municipality to convey land despite absence of the required sale approval and confirmation. The Court held that an internal request for approval was not a concluded governmental decision and conferred no enforceable purchase right. It also found the suit belated and contrary to the governing property rules. It set aside the decrees, directed immediate recovery of possession and forfeited the deposit as occupation damages.
Issues
- Whether auction permission and an internal approval request established a concluded sale enforceable by mandatory injunction.
- Whether the suit and the handling of statutory approval and official records were legally sustainable.
- What relief followed the bidder’s prolonged possession without a valid sale.
Provisions considered
- Rule 2, Haryana Municipalities Management of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976Distinguished prior sanction to auction from confirmation of the completed sale. (¶ 9-10)
- Sections 61 and 62, Haryana Municipal Act, 1973The nature, vesting and inventory status of municipal property required examination before ordering its conveyance. (¶ 20-22)
- Section 250, Haryana Municipal Act, 1973Supported binding State instructions requiring prior governmental approval for municipal-property sale. (¶ 24-26)
- Section 114, illustration (e), Indian Evidence Act, 1872The official-source communication attracted the presumption of regular official acts; summoning additional Government officers was unnecessary on this record. (¶ 25)
- Schedule, Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963The Court found the attempted enforcement filed in 2011 over the 1999 auction beyond the applicable three-year period. (¶¶ 19, 27)
Held
- The rules required separate sanction to conduct the auction and confirmation of the resulting sale. The internal letter seeking ex post facto State approval did not constitute approval or a final communicated confirmation enforceable by the bidder. (¶¶ 9-10, 13-17)
- Highest-bidder status and payment did not create a vested right absent the necessary acceptance and confirmation. A mandatory injunction could not substitute for a concluded contract; the suit as framed was not maintainable. (¶¶ 11-12, 18)
- The suit was also time-barred on the facts presented. The courts below had failed to examine limitation and the legal character of the land before ordering a conveyance. (¶¶ 19-22, 27)
- The State’s sale-approval instructions under section 250 bound the Deputy Commissioner. The municipality produced the relevant communication from official records, and it should not have been discarded merely for want of additional proof by Government witnesses. (¶ 24-26)
- Possession without the requisite valid sale was unlawful. The Court required the municipality to recover the land forthwith and treated the deposited consideration as damages for more than twenty years of illegal occupation. (¶ 28)
Result
Appeal allowed; all decrees below were set aside. The municipality was directed to take possession forthwith and furnish a compliance report within three months. The Rs.15,76,150 deposit was forfeited towards damages for unlawful occupation.