Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 995 (RAJ)

Laxmi Devi v. Jaipur Development Authority

2001-06-01

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2001
Honble SHARMA, J.–Core question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to whether the State or its instrumentality will be relieved from its obligation to act fairly and justly, if the dispute falls within the domain of contractual obligation? (2). This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the notice published on Feb. 27, 1987 in Rajasthan Patrika and the order dated June 7, 1988 as well as the resolution held in the meeting dated May 22, 1986 whereby the plot in question was cancelled. Prayer has also been made to restore the allotment of the plot in question to the petitioner and restrain the Municipal Corporation from auctioning or reallotting the said plot to any other person. (3). The undisputed facts required to be noticed at the outset are that the Jaipur Development Authority (for short the JDA) vide allotment letter dated July 21, 1984 allotted Plot No. 8 in question to the petitioner. Pursuant to the allotment letter the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 28,441/- on July 23, 1984 with the JDA towards the allotment price of the said plot. Thereafter vide letter dated September 5, 1984 the JDA directed the petitioner to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 489.60 towards Nazrana price of additional land measuring 1.53 sq. yds. and the petitioner deposited the same. In view of the letter dated September 13, 1984 the petitioner came into possession over the said plot and constructed boundary wall. (4). The petitioner vide application No. 496 dated July 30, 1985 submitted the plans to JDA seeking sanction to make constructions over the said plot. The JDA vide letter dated November 20, 1985 informed that in case the petitioner intends to raise construction she will have to pay the Nazrana at the prevalent commercial rates and further an additional land of 36.97 sq. meters will also have to be taken by the petitioner in the said price. The petitioner declined to raise commercial construction and wrote to JDA that she wanted to take back the plans. The JDA returned the plan vide letter dated January 7, 1986. (5). The JDA thereafter on February 28, 1986 asked the petitioner that since the petitioner intended to use the said plot for commercial purposes therefore why the said plot should not be regularised on payment of the commercial rates. The JDA returned the plan vide letter dated January 7, 1986. (5). The JDA thereafter on February 28, 1986 asked the petitioner that since the petitioner intended to use the said plot for commercial purposes therefore why the said plot should not be regularised on payment of the commercial rates. Similar letter was also issued by the JDA on April 4, 1986. The petitioner then submitted representation to the Commissioner JDA On May 4, 1986. (6). The JDA vide letter dated June 7, 1986 informed the petitioner the allotment made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot was cancelled in view of the decision taken in the meeting held on May 22, 1986. (7). In the month of July 1986 the employees of the JDA came in a gang and threatened the petitioner to dispossess her from the said plot and demolish the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner. The petitioner was forced to file a civil suit for perpetual injunction in the court of M.J.M.(East) Jaipur City. (8). A notice thereafter came to be published on January 27, 1987 in Rajasthan Patrika wherein it was stated that the said plot measuring 90.33 sq. yards which was allotted to the petitioner stood cancelled. (9). During the pendency of the writ petition the plot in question came to be transferred to the Municipal Corporation Jaipur therefore Municipal Corporation Jaipur was impleaded as respondent No.2. (10). The JDA did not submit reply to the writ petition. The Municipal Corporation Jaipur however submitted reply with the averments that allotment of the plot to the petitioner as a strip of land was contrary to rules. The allotment was made on the basis of wrong report. It was further averred that no possession was handed over to the petitioner and the cancellation of the plot was made in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice as the petitioner had already availed the alternative remedy by filing a civil suit therefore the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on that ground alone. (11). I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. (12). A look at the impugned documents dated June 7, 1986 and Feb. 27, 1987 demonstrates that the plot in question was not cancelled by the JDA on the ground that the allotment was contrary to the rule or based on wrong report. (11). I have heard the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. (12). A look at the impugned documents dated June 7, 1986 and Feb. 27, 1987 demonstrates that the plot in question was not cancelled by the JDA on the ground that the allotment was contrary to the rule or based on wrong report. The reason for cancellation as per the aforequoted documents lies on the dispute pertaining to the payment of commercial charges. It appears that the Municipal Corporation submitted the reply without properly examining the documents of the JDA. The plea raised by the Municipal Corporation is obviously after thought and against the record of the case. Moreover the Municipal Corporation has not filed any document in support of the said plea. (13). It appears from the record that the plot in question was allotted to the petitioner after payment of full consideration and its possession was handed over to the petitioner. The plans of construction on the said plot had been withdrawn by the petitioner to the knowledge of the JDA and the representation of the petitioner was not considered at all. There is nothing on record to suggest that the opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the petitioner before issuing the order of cancellation. The officers of the JDA to my mind had no jurisdiction to go behind the binding contract. The officers were invested with discretion and they had to exercise the discretion bonafide and not arbitrarily or capriciously. Every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason and actions uninformed by reasons may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rule of natural justice is incorporated in all State actions which affect fundamental rights or statutory rights of the citizen. All State actions must be free from the vice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. The Government action must not be arbitrary and discretion when conferred upon the Executive Authority must be exercised within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. The Government action must not be arbitrary and discretion when conferred upon the Executive Authority must be exercised within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. In the event the court finds that actions on the part of the Executive Authority have been taken in gross violation of the known principles of law or the decision suffers from being arbitrary, the court should not hesitate to strike down the action. An Executive Authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe these standards. Any citizen who intends to avail the opportunity to enter into favourable contractual relations has a legitimate expectation and entitled to assail the procedure adopted by the State or its instrumentality, on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (14). The act of respondents in unilaterally cancelling the allotment of plot in question suffers from the vice of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and unfairness. I am not impressed with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. The objection in regard to alternative remedy is also devoid of merit. The writ petition was admitted on September 14, 1988 and now after about twelve and half years it cannot be rejected on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the petitioner. Such argument is fallacious and cannot be entertained. (15). In view of the above discussions I allow the writ petition and quash the notice published on Feb. 27, 1987 in Rajasthan Patrika. The order dated June 7, 1988 and the resolution held in the meeting of JDA on May, 22, 1988 in respect of plot in question shall also stand set aside. While restoring the allotment and possession of the plot in question to the petitioner. I restrain the Municipal Corporation Jaipur from auctioning or realloting the said plot to any other person. The petitioner shall also be entitled to the costs of the writ petition.