ORDER Dipak Misra, J. Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of resolution dated 9-6-97 as contained in Annexue-P-7 and Demand Notice contained in Annexures-P-10 to P-20 and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking coercive action for recovery of ground rent at the rate of 6.5% from the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association and to grant some other reliefs. The facts in a nut-shell are that the petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Shop-keepers and is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1973. The petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary of the Association. The petitioner No. 1/Association, as pleaded in the writ petition, has been duly constituted with a view to solve the problems of shop-keepers of Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri. As mentioned it has 80 members. The members of the petitioner No. 1/Association after obtaining the land on permanent lease for a period of 30 years constructed the shops on the plots and the aforesaid shopping complex is known as Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex. According to the writ petitioners the land in question is situated in Khasra No. 117/2 and 136/1 at Patwari Circle No. 109 of Pandri Tarai admeasuring 48.60 acres of land. Originally it belonged to the State Government but Raipur Development Authority obtained possession thereof and demarcated the same to 180 plots in Scheme No. 32 and put the same to auction and the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association became successful bidders in the auction and availed the plots and constructed the shops. In the lease deed executed in the favour of the members of the petitioner No. 1/Association the lessees were required to pay ground rent at the rate of 6.5% of the amount of the premium. After the execution of the lease deed the shop keepers met the Chairman of the Raipur Development Authority and submitted a representation to the effect that the ground rent should be reduced to 2% in view of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1975 Rules'). Thereafter, vide Annexure-P-6 dated 8-11-95 an order was passed by the then Chairman of the Raipur Development Authority by which the ground rent was reduced from 6.5% to 2%. The members of the petitioner No. 1/Association paid the ground rent for the year 1996-97 at the rate of 2%. After this complex was constructed three market complexes namely, Pandri Kapda Market, Textile Market and Shyam Prasad Mukherjee Commercial Complex came up in Scheme No. 32. In respect of the aforesaid three complexes the ground rent is charged at the rate of 2% of the premium. While the shop-keepers of these three complexes are being allowed to pay the ground rent at the rate of 2% the shop-keepers of the petitioner No. 1/Association are being asked to pay the ground rent at the enhanced rate of 6.5% without any rhyme or reason. It is averred in the writ petition that such fixation of ground rent is contrary to the Rules and also is a manifestation of hostile discrimination. It is putforth that by resolution dated 9-6-97 (Annexure-P-7) the Board of Directors of the Raipur Development authority enhanced the ground rent from 2% to 6.5% in respect of Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, but there has been no change in respect of other three complexes. Learning about such enhancement the members of the petitioner No. 1/Assoication submitted representations but they were not paid heed to. The members were served with demand notices requiring them to deposit the ground rent with retrospective effect i.e. from 1998. Some of the demand notices have been brought on record as Annexures-P-10 to P-20. It is averred in the writ petition that fixation of such ground rent is contrary to the Rules 5,13 and 47 of the 1975 Rules. It is also pointed out that such determination offends the equality clause as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that initially the charge at the rate of 2% from the members of the Association was not justified, and in fact, it was a mistake and the moment the mistake was realised rectification was carried out. Reference has been made to Rules 3 and 4 of the 1975 Rules to justify the action of the Authority. Reference has been made to Rules 3 and 4 of the 1975 Rules to justify the action of the Authority. It is also highlighted that the submission that Rule 13 covers the field is not correct and, in fact, the authority is justified in making the demands at the rate of 6.5% of the premium. With regard to the resolution it is putforth that the same has to be in consonance with the Rules which prescribe 6.5% of the premium towards ground rent, and hence, the demand is justified. With regard to other three complexes it is replied that the same shall to reviewed and if it is found out that the lessees therein are not entitled to pay premium at the rate of 2% and required to pay at the rate of 6.5% appropriate steps shall be taken to collect the same. I have heard Mr. Alok Aradhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K.W. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Aradhe has contended that the land in question was purchased by way of auction and, therefore, Rules 13 and 47 of the 1975 Rules would govern the field and no other Rule would come into play. It is his further submission that when all the four complexes are under one Scheme there cannot be difference in the fixation of the ground rent, as such fixation is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. Mr. K.W. Agrawal, learned Counsel, resisting the aforesaid submission of Mr. Aradhe has referred to various aspects of Rules to justify the stand of the Authority and as far as the submission of Article 14 is concerned it is submitted by him that if the fixation is a mistake the Authority would look into it and rectify the same. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar I have carefully perused the Rules in force. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the land in question was initially recorded in the name of Jail Department in the Revenue Records. Thereafter, the same was transferred to the Raipur Development Authority along with the other lands admeasuring 48.60 acres for construction of marketing complexes. It is admitted by the petitioners that on 28-1-80 the possession of the land was delivered to the Raipur Development Authority. This position is also not disputed by the respondents. Thereafter, the same was transferred to the Raipur Development Authority along with the other lands admeasuring 48.60 acres for construction of marketing complexes. It is admitted by the petitioners that on 28-1-80 the possession of the land was delivered to the Raipur Development Authority. This position is also not disputed by the respondents. Thus, the land in question belongs to the Government which later on vested with the Authority. In this context, Rules 3 and 4 are significant. Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules stipulates that no Government land vested in or managed by the Authority shall be transferred except with the general or special sanction of the State Government given in that behalf. Rule 4 reacts as under:-- 4. All other land (hereinafter called the "Authority land") shall be transferred in accordance with the following rules. Rule 5 which stipulates the manner regarding transfer of the Authority land reads as under:-- 5. Transfer of the Authority land shall be as under:-- (a) By direct negotiations with the party; or (b) By public auction; or (c) By inviting tenders; or (d) Under Concessional terms. From the aforesaid it is graphically clear that the Authority land can be disposed of in the above four ways, but the Government land is to be transferred after obtaining general or special sanction of the State Government. Mr. Aradhe, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has placed heavy reliance on the Rule 13. The said Rule reads as under:-- 13. When the plot of land is put to auction the highest bid shall be taken as accepted. If in the opinion of the Chairman the last bid is not fair or is lower than the upset price the Chairman may reject the bid and order for a fresh auction to be held on a future date to be announced later where the highest bid is accepted by the Chairman the bidder shall deposit 30 percent of the bid money forthwith and all the sums deposited by other bidders shall be returned. After acceptance by the Chairman of the highest bid in case of auction, the balance of auction bid shall be deposited in the office of the Authority within fifteen days of the communication of such acceptance. The land so auctioned shall be transferred to the highest bidder subject among other things, to the condition of payment of ground rent at two percent of premium annually. The land so auctioned shall be transferred to the highest bidder subject among other things, to the condition of payment of ground rent at two percent of premium annually. Emphasising on the last sentence Mr. Aradhe has contended that as the land in question has been disposed of by public auction the ground rent has to be fixed at 2% of the premium. Submission of Mr. Aradhe is that if it would have been the Government land it could not have been put to auction and even if it is the Government land, having been put to action the payment of ground rent is to be governed by Rule 13. In this context, I may profitably refer to Rule 47 which is as under:-- 47. The lessee shall annually pay the ground rent at 2% of the premium in the case of Authority plots and at 6 1/2 percent of the premium in the case of Government or Nazul plot in advance on or before the 1st June every year, the first of such payments being due on the 1st June of the financial year in which the lease commences. On a bare reading of the aforesaid Rules it is quite vivid that 6.5% of the premium is payable towards ground rent if it is the government land. In the case at hand, as had been indicated earlier, the land belongs to the Government but is vested in the Authority. True it is, it had been disposed of by public auction but in may considered view there is no bar to dispose of the same by public auction. It is the nature of land which determines the ground rent and not the manner of disposal. Hence, Rule 47 has to have full play. Thus, reading Rules 3, 4, 5, 13 and 47 in a conjoint and purposive manner it is graphically clear that the land being the Government land 6.5% of the premium is payable towards ground rent. The resolution passed by the Authority cannot travel beyond the Rules nor can it transgress it. Hence, I conclude and hold that the determination at the rate of 6.5% is sound and correct. As far as the second limb of argument of Mr. Aradhe is concerned it relates to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The resolution passed by the Authority cannot travel beyond the Rules nor can it transgress it. Hence, I conclude and hold that the determination at the rate of 6.5% is sound and correct. As far as the second limb of argument of Mr. Aradhe is concerned it relates to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has been clarified in the return that the Authority would check up into the said aspect and take necessary action. Be that is it may, because of mistake committed in respect of other commercial complexes, the rectification of mistake in respect of the present one cannot be annulled. As both the submissions of raised by Mr. Aradhe are devoid of substance the writ petition is bound to fail and, accordingly, the same in dismissed. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed