This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 20.4.2011 of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.3359 of 2011. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that two writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.3359 and 3360 of 2011 were decided by the learned Single Judge by impugned common judgment dated 20.4.2011 and Letters Patent Appeal No.1707 of 2011 filed challenging the very judgment passed in Special Civil Application No.3360 of 2011 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 9.11.2011 by the following order :-
"This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the common order dated 20.4.2011 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court disposing of two writ applications by dismissing them.
2. In the writ application being Special Civil Application No. 3360 of 2011, the appellants challenged the order of the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, who affirmed the orders passed by the authorities below, revoking the previous order of allocation of land on the ground that there was gross irregularity and illegality in conducting and holding the auction proceedings, where the appellants were successful bidders.
3. When the outcome of the auction was set aside, the appellants filed representation before the appropriate authority, which was turned down. Being dissatisfied, the appellants preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector challenging the order of the original authority cancelling the auction sale, which was also turned town.
4. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Deputy Collector, the appellants preferred appeal before the Collector, Palanpur, which also came to be rejected by order dated 31.01.2002. The said order was challenged before the revisional authority, viz. Secretary (Appeals),by preferring revision application. The Revenue Secretary (Appeals) rejected the revision application of the appellants by affirming the orders of the authorities below revoking allocation of land on the ground of irregularity and illegality in publication of the auction notice.
5. Against the decision of the Revenue Secretary (Appeals), the appellants preferred writ application before this Court and as indicated earlier, the learned Single Judge of this Court by order impugned in this appeal, rejected the writ applications by affirming the orders of the authorities below.
6. Ms. Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants strenuously contended before us that her clients were not given proper hearing before setting aside the order of the original authority, where her clients were the successful bidders.
7. After going through the material on record, we find that all the authorities below, after relying upon the report given on inquiry, ultimately came to the conclusion that there was gross irregularity and illegality in publication of the auction notice and only two families of the area got allocation orders. It is visualized from the evidence on record that there was only a “paper publication” and there was no actual beating of drum and on the basis of such inquiry, authorities below decided to cancel the previous auction.
8. On consideration of the aforesaid material on record, we agree with the learned Single Judge that this is not a fit case for interference with the finding regarding irregularity in actual publication of auction notice. Moreover, it is now settled law that a successful bidder in the auction has no legal right to insist for final allocation, if the authority decides to revoke it on lawful ground.
9. As the case before us is a case of fraud in publication of notice of auction, we do not find any merits and consequently we dismiss the appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Since the main appeal is dismissed, Civil Application No. 11510 of 2011 for stay does not survive and, therefore, it is disposed of accordingly."
3. Since there was a common judgment, therefore, the judgment dated 9.11.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1707 of 2011 would be applicable to the facts of the instant case and, therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal is also dismissed for the same reason as provided in Letters Patent Appeal No.1707 of 2011.
In view of dismissal of appeal, civil application also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[A. J. DESAI, J.] Savariya