Background of the 1981 Land Auction Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the cancellation of a land allotment made in 1981 for a 32-kanal parcel in Haryana's Naraingarh tehsil, Ambala district, after finding that the original auction record was manipulated. The reserve price was slashed from Rs 11,200 to Rs 1,352—barely one-eighth of its original value—before the highest bid of Rs 6,000 was accepted.
Division Bench Ruling
The Division Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi and Justice Deepak Manchanda dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the allottee's legal representatives. The case had previously been dismissed by a Single Judge on February 26, 2026, who noted that the initial confirmation of the auction was likely due to collusion between the allottee and officials.
Details of the Auction and Manipulation
The land was auctioned on November 27, 1981, with a reserve price of Rs 11,200. The appellant made the highest bid of Rs 6,000. However, the competent authority objected on January 30, 1982, stating the bid was below the reserve price. Subsequently, the reserve price was altered to Rs 1,352 by cutting the original figure, making the Rs 6,000 bid appear above the reserve. The allotment was confirmed on June 9, 1982.
Default and Re-auction
The allottee failed to pay instalments from December 1986 onwards, leading to default. The land was re-auctioned in February 1988 with a reserve price of Rs 11,200, and a new bidder offered Rs 32,000, with allotment confirmed in March 1988. Although the original allottee deposited overdue instalments in December 1988, the court noted this occurred after the fresh auction was completed.
Settlement Commissioner's Findings
In June 1993, the Settlement Commissioner held that the original allotment was a result of manipulation of official records and upheld the subsequent auction. A writ petition challenging this order was dismissed by a Single Judge in February 2026, leading to the appeal before the Division Bench.
Court's Observations on Fraud and Natural Justice
The Bench ruled that a beneficiary of a fraudulent allotment cannot claim violation of natural justice. It stated, "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."
Conclusion: Finality of Subsequent Auction
The court noted that the fresh auction process completed 36 years ago cannot be set aside now. The Bench concluded, "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."
