A highest bidder acquires no rights over shops absent their express inclusion in settlement terms.

Deokuli Mela Shairat, situated over Khata No. 933 and R.S. Plot Nos. 4735 and 4736, measuring approximately 71.2 decimals, was put to settlement for the financial year 2023–24.

The appellant was the highest bidder at ₹29,40,000 and deposited ₹20,00,000.

The Collector thereafter approved issuance of a provisional parwana and possession of the Mela Shairat was handed over to him.

The appellant alleged that 21 shops situated within the Mela area were not handed over to him, thereby preventing him from realising levy from those shops.

An inspection report dated 7 July 2023 recorded the existence of the 21 shops over R.S. Plot No. 4735.

The appellant consequently filed C.W.J.C. No. 12287 of 2023 seeking possession of the shops.

During the writ proceedings, the authorities demanded payment of the balance settlement amount of ₹11,75,200.

On the appellant’s failure to pay the amount, Certificate Case No. 02/2024–25 was initiated for recovery of ₹12,03,927 under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

The State contended that the settlement covered only the Mela Shairat and not the 21 shops, which were separately settled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on a monthly rental basis.

The learned Single Judge accepted this contention and dismissed the writ petition on 22 April 2025.

The appellant challenged that order in the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the 21 shops situated within the Deokuli Mela area formed part of the Shairat settlement granted to the appellant, thereby conferring upon him a right to possess the shops and realise levy from them?

Whether the appellant remained liable to pay the balance settlement amount despite his dispute concerning possession of the 21 shops?

Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge suffered from illegality, perversity, or any other infirmity warranting interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction?

The Court applied the principle that a writ court deciding a matter on affidavits must confine its adjudication to the pleadings and evidence placed on record and cannot grant relief on conjectures or make out an unpleaded case, as reiterated in Allahabad University & Ors. v. Geetanjali Tiwari (Pandey) & Ors. , (2024) 20 SCC 23.

It further applied the rule that material factual allegations not specifically denied may be treated as admitted.

In matters of public auction or settlement, the rights of the highest bidder are governed by the terms of the advertisement and settlement documents; being the highest bidder does not confer rights beyond those terms.

The Court also applied the limited scope of intra-court appellate review, under which interference is warranted only where the Single Judge’s decision is demonstrably erroneous or perverse, and not merely because another view is possible, as stated in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 112.

The Court found that neither the settlement advertisement nor the provisional parwana contained any stipulation showing that the 21 shops were included in the appellant’s Shairat settlement.

The respondents had specifically pleaded that the shops were separately settled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on a monthly basis and relied upon an earlier official letter referring to such separate settlement.

The appellant did not specifically controvert that pleading or produce any document establishing that the shops formed part of his settlement.

The inspection report merely proved the physical existence and location of the shops; it did not establish the appellant’s contractual or legal entitlement over them.

Since the appellant’s rights were confined to the terms of the settlement, his status as the highest bidder could not, by itself, create a right to possess or realise levy from the shops.

The Court further held that the appellant’s pending grievance did not suspend his obligation to pay the balance settlement amount, particularly after a specific demand had been issued by the Circle Officer.

No perversity or demonstrable legal error was found in the Single Judge’s decision.

It held that the 21 shops were not shown to be part of the appellant’s Deokuli Mela Shairat settlement, and that the appellant remained liable for the outstanding settlement amount.

Finding no illegality, perversity, or other infirmity in the judgment dated 22 April 2025, the Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.