JUDGMENT 1. :- The petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.6.1993 (Annexure-7) passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1964 and order dated 31st May 1993 (Annexure-14), the appellate order passed against the order Annexure-7, with a further prayer that the respondents be directed not to evict the petitioner company from the land in dispute. 2. The facts relating to the case are that the Management of RIICO had decided to offer a land measuring 56 Bighas or 1.40 lakhs sq. meters situated on the National Highway No.11 between Reengus to Sikar at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges, whichever is higher. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% development charges amounting to Rs. 70,000/- by way of demand draft. A copy of such letter dated 30.1.1981 is attached as Annexure R-1 with the written statement. The petitioner had undertaken to accept the land vide Annexure-R/2. Vide order Annexure R/3 dated 31.1.1981 the allotment was made for establishment of Synthetic Yarn Project on the terms and conditions as mentioned in Annexure R/3 to the effect that the lease rent was fixed at Rs. 37.50/- per yea for every 4000 sq. meter. The development charges were fixed. It was further mentioned in Annexure R/3 that the petitioner was duty bound to deposit the lease rent as well as the development charges and also have to execute the lease-deed and the petitioner shall have to pay the cost of execution plus 10% administrative charges as be decided by the Infrastructure Committee. A condition was stipulated, if the rent of development charges is not deposited from the date of receipt of the order or extended time, the allotment shall stand cancelled. Possession was taken on 31.1.1981 itself. The land acquisition proceedings were started and the compensation was paid to the khatedars. It was felt by the company that the compensation of the land, as has been fixed by the Collector, was excessive and, therefore, it was decided to file the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the company and ultimately the reference was also filed. According to the respondents, the department had to pay and deposit the amount of Rs. According to the respondents, the department had to pay and deposit the amount of Rs. 23,65,967.94 towards the compensation of land and thus, a meeting was held to recover the price of the land from the petitioner. A notice was issued by the respondents on 1.9.1990 to the effect that the outstanding amount has not been deposited as per allotment letter and, therefore, the allotted land in the name of the company was cancelled and re-determined. Copy of such notice dated 1.9.1990 is attached as Annexure R/12. In the mean time the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court and proceedings were stayed vide order dated 14.2.1990 by the High Court and the petitioner had informed the RIICO about the fact of filing of the writ petition. Vide order dated 23.1.1991, the Governor had also appointed the Estate Officers, one Gurdayal Singh Sandhu, IAS and Ashutosh Gupta, RAS, copy of which is attached as Annexure R/17 under the Public Premises Act. 3. With the above said facts as mentioned in the written statement, ultimately a notice was issued by the Estate Officer to the petitioner for eviction from the land in question which is being challenged. 4. The petitioner submits that he was required to pay only Rs. 2/- per sq. meter with an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- which deposit had been made and a registered lease-deed had been entered into on 18.2.1981 vide Annexure-1 and thus it is the term of the lease-deed which will govern the parties. It is further submitted that because of the reason that it was a joint venture, therefore, it was decided to oppose the amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that the respondents had fixed the economic rent to be Rs. 37.50/- per yea for 4000 sq.meter which was subject to revision. It is submitted that the parties were governed by the conditions as per Clause 2(b), clause 2(h) of the deed. It is further the case of the petitioner that the lease could not have been determined as per order dated 1.9.1990 which was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition and on 6.4.1992 the order was passed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. It is further the case of the petitioner that the lease could not have been determined as per order dated 1.9.1990 which was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition and on 6.4.1992 the order was passed that the petitioner would not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioner that the order Annexure-12 had been wiped out in view of the order passed by the High Court (Annexure-2). The petitioner submits that the determination of the allotment of the land was bad and the RIICO was estopped from taking any action against the petitioner in violation of lease agreement and, there was no violation of any agreement at all. The Estate Officer was not authorised to proceed as no Gazette notification was there to appoint him as Estate Officer. It is the further case of the petitioner that the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee had only taken place after issuance of the notice dated 1.9.1990 i.e. on 29.5.1991 and before the decision arrived by the Infrastructure Committee, the petitioner's lease could not have been determined as price was to be fixed by the said Committee. It is the case of the petitioner that the economic rent was being deposited yearly and, therefore, there was no question of any demand of payment as has been made by RIICO vide letter dated 11.5.1989 to the tune of Rs. 17,45,604.83. The liability was denied by the petitioner for the reason that there was no such condition provided in the lease-deed. It is further submitted that the whole of the land was developed by the petitioner himself with a huge cost and, therefore, the cancellation of allotment vide order dated 1.9.1990 was illegal. The petitioner also relies on the condition 3(h) of the lease agreement i.e. that if any dispute arises, the matter can be referred to the sole arbitrator of the Collector of the District and, therefore, submits that not only no amount was due, but the matter could not have been referred to the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act. 5. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the notice Annexure-3 issued on 16.11.1992 by the Estate Officer to the petitioner, purported to have been issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was illegal and the Estate Officer had no powers to adjudicate upon the matter and no grounds have been mentioned in the notice to hear the matter and the notice is vague. 6. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Annexure R/10, a resolution of the minutes of the meeting of Infrastructure Committee held on 29.5.1991, wherein it was decided that the price of the land be recovered at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq.meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges, which-ever is higher. It was further observed that the petitioner falls in second category and it was decided that the cost of acquisition be recovered along with 10% administrative charges at the rates mentioned above. 7. A submission had been made at the bar that the petitioner unit had made substantive production worth Rs. 994 lacs in the year 1966-67 and Rs. 1605/- lacs in the year 1997-98 and in case the orders are allowed to be sustained, there would be huge loss to the nation, state exchequer and about 1500 workers will have to be removed if the factory is ultimately dosed. The petitioner relies on (1) AIR 1982 SC 1081 , (2) 1986(1) SCC 133 , (3) AIR 1968 SC 620 , (4) AIR 1961 SC 1570 and (5) AIR 19% Patna 1630 on the proposition that no summary proceedings can be initiated in a case where dispute of serious facts ad law are involved. The petitioner also challenges that there is no notification in favour of respondent Estate Officer, but this argument is not available for the reason that the notification dated 23.1.1991 Ex.R-17 has been placed on record by the respondent. 8. The petitioner also challenges that there is no notification in favour of respondent Estate Officer, but this argument is not available for the reason that the notification dated 23.1.1991 Ex.R-17 has been placed on record by the respondent. 8. One of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice of cancellation could have been issued to the petitioner until and unless decision of the Infrastructure Committee was taken and the decision was so taken on 29.5.1991 as per the resolution No.5 of the minutes of the Infrastructure Committee wherein it was resolved that in the light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation vide item No.11 of the meeting held on 24.2.1979, the cost of acquisition plus 10% administration charges are to be recovered from M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. for the allotment of the land in Reengus made to them in the year 1981 and this communication was released on 4.6.1991. Annexure-10 was in consonance with the undertaking dated 31.1.1981 copy of which has been attached by the respondents as Annexure R/2 whereby the petitioner had undertaken that fixing of the price of the rate of land would be acceptable to the petitioner as per the decision by the Infrastructure Development Committee of RIICO. The question now arises is apart from the development charges etc. which was otherwise payable and until and unless the Infrastructure Development Committee fixed the price of the land and it is communicated to the petitioner, could it be said that the petitioner had become trespasser for non-payment of the price of the land so fixed by the Infrastructure Committee and whether even before fixing of the price by the said Committee, the petitioner could be issued a notice under the Public Premises Act for non-payment of the price, obviously not; and, therefore, the respondent Estate Officer had taken an action which was pre-mature. No notice could have been issued or any proceedings on such notice could have been initiated by the Estate Officer. Even as per the written statement and as per Annexure R-1 letter dated 30.1.1981, an offer was made to the petitioner for allotment of land in question at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges as decided by the Infrastructure Committee whichever is higher (Emphasis laid). Even as per the written statement and as per Annexure R-1 letter dated 30.1.1981, an offer was made to the petitioner for allotment of land in question at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges as decided by the Infrastructure Committee whichever is higher (Emphasis laid). This was so accepted vide Annexure R/2 by the petitioner. Infrastructure Committee had met for passing of the resolution on undertaking as per decision as Annexure R/10 on 29.5.1991. Item No.1 and the decision thereon the Infrastructure Committee is reproduced as under: 'Extract copy of Resolution No. 5 of the minutes of the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee of the Board of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur held on 29.5.1991 at 11.30 a.m. Item No.5 : Allotment of land made to M/s Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. at Reengus Distt. Sikar.The Committee discussed the position brought out in the agenda note.The Committee observed that the Board of Directors of the Corporation vide item No.11 of their meeting held on 24th February, 1979 had accorded approval for allotment of undeveloped land in the industrial areas of the Corporation on the following rates: Category Minimum Earned Credits (i) Founcation Courses 49 (ii) Hard Core Courses 60 (iii) Soft Core Course 10 (iv) Advanced Technology Courses 15 (v) Un-specified** 6 The Committee further observed that the captioned industrial area of Reengus falls under the category of "All other categories" in reference to the above decision of the Board. The Committee in light of the above decision of the Board decided that the cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges should be recovered from M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Limited for the allotment of 1,40,000 sq. mtrs. of undeveloped rand in Reengus made to them in the year 1981. The following Resolution was adopted: Resolution : "RESOLVED that in light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Corporation vide item No.11 of their meeting held on 24th February, 1979, the cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges should be recovered from M/s. Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. for the allotment of 1,40,000 sq. mtrs. of undeveloped land in Rengus made to them in the year 1981." 9. mtrs. of undeveloped land in Rengus made to them in the year 1981." 9. Even otherwise vide Annexure R/11 for the category relating to the petitioner which was part of Annexure-1 also, it had been mentioned that the cost of the acquisition shall be the price plus 10% administrative charges whichever is higher. Cost of acquisition was to be determined. The net result of the discussion is that the matter was delayed unnecessarily by the respondents themselves in taking a decision by the Infrastructure Committee and, therefore, in my opinion, the respondents wee entitled to recover the amount after the decision of the Infrastructure Committee, which decision was taken in May 1991 and in such situation it would have been appropriate that after the decision vide Annexure-10 if any proceedings were to be initiated should have been initiated subsequent to the taking of the decision Annexure-10. The petitioner is bound by its commitment made vide Annexure-2 to pay the price at the rate fixed by the Infrastructure Committee and so are the respondents to abide by their own decision in Annexure-1 to the effect that the price fixed shall be as per the details mentioned therein whichever is higher. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, in my opinion, the action taken against the petitioner on the basis of the cancellation order dated 1.9.1990 was premature as the action could have only been initiated after May 1991 as per the resolution of fixing of the price vide Annexure-10 i.e. the decision of the Infrastructure Development Committee. 11. For the above said discussion, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order Annexures 7 and 14 are quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondent is at liberty to recover the amount as per the decision of the Infrastructure Committee from the petitioner in accordance with law which amount the petitioner is bound to pay as per its own undertaking vide Annexure-2. Anything said in the decision of the writ petition shall not debar the respondents to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount or any other action in accordance with law.With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******