Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 979 (RAJ)

Supla Jain v. Urban Improvement Trust

2003-07-17

ANIL DEV SINGH, H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th May, 1998, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057 of 1996, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 15th February, 1995 was rejected. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: 3. Plot No. E-60, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur was put to auction on 13th December. 1972. According to the appellant, she participated in the auction. Her hid was accepted and as a consequence thereof she deposited Rs. 1,3001- being 1/4th of the amount of her total bid of Rs. 5,132.82 at fall of the hammer. The appellant in the writ petition claims that she had offered to tender the balance of the bid amount within 10 days from the date of the auction. This allegation has been categorically denied by the respondents in the r reply to the writ petition 4. On 23rd December, 1972, the respondents issued a notice to the appellant, calling upon her to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3.832.82 by 15th January, 1973. Despite the notice, the amount was not deposited by the appellant. On 24th November, 1973, another notice was sent by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur to the appellant calling upon her to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 3.832.82 along with interest @6% for the delay cat;;ed in making the payment. The notice did not have the desired effect on the appellant and the amount was not deposited. On 29th April, 1974, how. ever, the appellant tendered a cheque for the sum of Rs. 3,835/- in the office of the respondents. The cheque was not encashed by the respondents. Subsequently, on 18th September, 1974, the appellant deposited a demand draft for the sum of Rs. 3835/- in the office of the respondents. The respondents returned the demand draft to the appellant, since the draft was deposited after an inordinate delay of one year and five months. 5. On 28th November, 1984, the respondents intimated to the appellant that since the bid amount was not paid by her in time, the bid stood cancelled w.e.f. 22nd October, 1977. 6. Aggrieved by the communication, the appellant filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 906/1985) before this Court. 5. On 28th November, 1984, the respondents intimated to the appellant that since the bid amount was not paid by her in time, the bid stood cancelled w.e.f. 22nd October, 1977. 6. Aggrieved by the communication, the appellant filed a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 906/1985) before this Court. On 24th September, 1991, the writ petition was allowed and the order dated 28th November, 1984 was quashed on the ground that the adverse action was taken against the appellant without giving her an opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the respondents gave opportunity of hearing to the appellant on 14th February, 1995 and 15th February, 1995. On consideration of the matter the respondents on 22nd January, 1996 cancelled the allotment.The appellant not being satisfied with the order of the respondents dated 22nd January, 1996, filed a fresh writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1057/1996. The learned Single Judge by a detailed order rejected the writ petition. Thereupon, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. At the out set we may recount the facts as they appear to us from the writ record. (1) the auction was held on 13th December, 1972; (2) the bid of the appellant was accepted, being the highest; (3) the appellant deposited Rs. 1300/-, 1/4th of the amount of the total bid of Rs. 5,132.82 on 13th December, 1972; and (4) the balance amount of money was not deposited for along period of time despite issuance of two notices by the Urban Improvement Trust to the appellant. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was required to deposit the balance amount within a particular period of time. The auction notice or the terms of the bid are not on record. But it is usual practice that after the bid is accepted, 1/4th of the bid amount is required to be deposited immediately on acceptance of the bid and the remaining amount is required to be deposited within thirty days. Assuming that the amount was not required to be deposited within thirty days of acceptance of the bid, even then, the balance amount was required to be deposited within a reasonable period of time. There is no dispute that the balance amount was not deposited till 28th April, 1974. Assuming that the amount was not required to be deposited within thirty days of acceptance of the bid, even then, the balance amount was required to be deposited within a reasonable period of time. There is no dispute that the balance amount was not deposited till 28th April, 1974. It was only on 29th April, 1974, a cheque dated 25.3.74 was tendered by the appellant in the office of the Urban Improvement Trust. That means, from 13th December, 1972 till 29th April, 1974, the balance amount was not paid by the appellant though a period of more than one year and five months had elapsed between the two dates. In case the appellant was seriously interested in acquiring the plot, there appears to be no reason why the balance amount could not be deposited within reasonable period of time. Even on 29th April, 1974, a bankers cheque was not tendered to the Urban Improvement Trust. Assuming that the appellant was entitled to make payment by sending a cheque to the Urban Improvement Trust, surely the amount cannot be said to have been paid within a reasonable period of time, since the cheque was received in the office of the Urban improvement Trust after one year and five months from the date of the acceptance of the bid. It 1 needs to be pointed out that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') was not in force at that time when the bid was made by the appellant and accepted by the respondents as the Rules came into force in the year 1974 s and the bid of the appellant was accepted in the year 1972. Even if we go by the Rules of 1974, the appellant cannot claim that the action of the respondents in cancelling the bid was untenable. Even if we go by the Rules of 1974, the appellant cannot claim that the action of the respondents in cancelling the bid was untenable. The relevant rules read as under:- "(f)(i) The successful bidder shall be required to deposit one-fourth to of the amount of his bid forthwith on the acceptance of the bid and the remaining three-fourth of the amount of the bid shall be deposited by him within one month of the acceptance of the bid and in case of failure to deposit within the next 30 days, interest @15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of acceptance of bid: Provided that in case of default in depositing the three-fourth amount of hid within the period prescribed above, the one-fourth of the amount of the bid deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and auction of the land shall automatically stand cancelled. Provided further that the Chairman may regularise such auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation within a period of one year from the date of such automatic cancellation if the successful bidder is prepared to pay the 314th amount of the bid money plus interest @15% per annum upto the date of regularisation of auction of land and in at also an amount of penalty at the following rates:- (a) Upto six months: 5% of the amount. (b) more than six months: 10% remaining unpaid. (ii) After the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the said automatic cancellation, the Chairman shall have no power to regularise such auction of land, but the Trust will have power to extend this period by one year more on payment by the bidder, the outstanding amount of bid plus interest and penalty as provided in Sub-clause (i) above." 10. Thus it is clear from the above Rule that after the acceptance of the bid, the remaining amount is required to be deposited within next thirty days and in case the amount is not deposited, interest P15% per annum is required to be charged with retrospective effect from the date of the acceptance of the bid till payment. Thus it is clear from the above Rule that after the acceptance of the bid, the remaining amount is required to be deposited within next thirty days and in case the amount is not deposited, interest P15% per annum is required to be charged with retrospective effect from the date of the acceptance of the bid till payment. The first proviso to the Rule provides that in the event of default in depositing 3/4th of the amount of the bid within the period prescribed, 1i4th of the amount of the bid amount, deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and the auction of the land shall automatically stand cancelled. The second proviso to the Rule 45 empowers the Chairman to pass an order for withdrawal of automatic cancellation within a period of one year from the date of such automatic cancellation. According to the second proviso automatic cancellation in the instant case could have been revoked by February, 1974. It is significant to note that the cheque was tendered on 29th April, 1974 i.e. so after a period of one year and four months from the date of automatic cancellation of the auction. Beyond a period of one year from the date of automatic cancellation even the Chairman. Urban Improvement Trust has no power to revoke the automatic cancellation of the bid. ln order to judge the reasonableness of the period within which the balance amount ought to have been deposited by the appellant, one can draw upon the Rules for guidance, even though the Rules were not in vogue when the hid was given and accepted. 11. Under the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal tails and ;s hereby dismissed. However, looking to 10 the fact that the appellant is a senior citizen and has been fighting this litigation for a long period of time, we consider it appropriate to direct that in case the appellant is willing to deposit the present market value of the land within a period of three months, the respondents shall allot the plot to the appellant. The respondents shall communicate present market value of the 1s plot to the appellant within a period of fifteen days.Appeal Dismissed. *******