Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1757 (RAJ)

Yogesh Kumar Kasliwal v. The Secretary, Jaipur

2006-05-19

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-This special appeal arises from order dated 02.03.2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 721 of 1988 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the orders dated 21.08.1987 and 19.01.1988 cancelling allotment of plot No. J-48 at Krishna Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur on his failure to deposit the balance three-fourth amount, and as a consequence rejecting his offer to deposit the balance amount. The appellant also sought quashing of auction notice dated 07.03.1988 for fresh allotment of the plot. 3. Case of the appellant is that in 1986 while he was studying in the United States of America he came to Jaipur on vacation. He came across an auction notice issued by Aditya Auction House in the matter of allotment of plots by auction on behalf of the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, JDA). The appellant participated in the auction which was held on 17.07.1986 and being the highest bidder he was allotted the plot in question i.e., Plot No. J-48, Krishna Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur measuring 278.70 sq.mtrs. As per the condition of auction he deposited one-fourth of the total value of plot calculated @ Rs. 912/-per sq. mtr. on the next day i.e., 18.07.1986. The appellant thereafter went back to the USA for prosecuting studies. Before leaving India he executed a power of attorney in favour of his uncle J.K. Jain to do the needful. Case of the appellant is that the balance three-fourth amount was to be deposited only on receipt of letter of confirmation from the respondents. On 011.1986 letter was issued by the Additional Secretary of the JDA demanding Rs. 1,90,455/-, being the balance three-fourth amount of the cost of plot wherein the column regarding date by which such deposit was to be made, was left blank and in the circumstances under bona fide misconception the amount was not deposited. One D.D. Goswami meanwhile filed writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 272/1987, seeking allotment of the plot in question claiming easmentary rights on the ground that he held the adjacent plot. One D.D. Goswami meanwhile filed writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 272/1987, seeking allotment of the plot in question claiming easmentary rights on the ground that he held the adjacent plot. On 10.02.1987 the High Court passed order of stay in terms that "the sale of plot No. J-48, situated at Krishna Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur shall not be confirmed." As a result of the said order of this Court, the process of confirmation of the allotment/sale was to remain stayed, but the respondents illegally cancelled the allotment by order dated 21.08.1987 during currency of the stay order. The one-fourth amount deposited by the appellant on 18.07.1986 was also forfeited. On receipt of the said letter dated 21.08.1987 Shri J. K. Jain holding power of attorney on behalf of the appellant made request to condone the delay and permit deposit of the balance amount. By letter dated 19.01.1988 the request was declined. In these circumstances the appellant filed the writ petition for quashing the impugned orders/letter and auction notice for fresh allotment of plot. 4. Shri R.K. Kala, learned Counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on the order dated 10.02.1987 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 272/1987 and submitted that the order of stay not only barred the respondents from confirming the sale but also prevented them from cancelling the allotment. According to the Counsel, confirmation of sale was the pre-condition for deposit of the balance amount and the confirmation having been stayed, the appellant bona fide believed that he was not required to deposit the balance amount. 5. The submissions aforesaid appear to be afterthought. As indicated above, order of stay had been passed at the instance of D.D. Goswami who was claiming allotment of the plot to himself on the basis of his professed easmentary rights, and the order was clearly adverse to the appellant. He cannot take shelter under the said order at later stage after the allotment was cancelled. In any view of the matter the appellant had been called upon to deposit the balance three-fourth amount in terms of the auction notice by letters dated 10.1986 and 011.1986. The letter dated 011.1986 referred to on behalf of the appellant was not the first letter of its kind. Earlier on 10.1986 similar letter had been issued. The order of stay was passed on 10.02.1987. The letter dated 011.1986 referred to on behalf of the appellant was not the first letter of its kind. Earlier on 10.1986 similar letter had been issued. The order of stay was passed on 10.02.1987. There is no explanation why deposit was not made within this period. It may be mentioned here that Writ Petition No. 272/1987 was withdrawn by D.D. Goswami on 21.05.1988. He filed a fresh writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/1988 but no interim order was passed in that case. The petition was dismissed by the common order alongwith the writ petition of the appellant. 6. The submission that in letter dated 011.1986 the column regarding date of deposit was blank which caused misunderstanding, is totally misconceived. The relevant column was meant for head under which deposit was to be made, and not the date of deposit. The letter referred to the letter dated 10.1986 calling upon the appellant to deposit the amount, and two earlier letters dated 28.08.1986 and 30.09.1986 which had been returned undelivered. 7. Counsel for the appellant then submitted that the respondents have power to condone the delay in terms of Clause (f) of Annexure-A read with Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Clause (f) provides that the successful bidder shall be required to deposit one-fourth of the amount of his bid forthwith on the acceptance of the bid and the remaining three-fourth amount shall be deposited by him within one month of the acceptance. In case of failure to deposit within the next 30 days (by amendment now it is sixty days), interest @ 15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of acceptance of the bid. The proviso appended to Clause (f) provides for forfeiture of the one-fourth amount and automatic cancellation of the auction i.e., allotment. Having regard to the significance of the provision, it may be quoted verbatim as under- "Provided that in case of default in depositing the three-fourth amount of bid within the period prescribed, above, the one-fourth of the amount of the bid deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and auction of land shall automatically stand cancelled." Under the second proviso the Chairman may regularize such auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation within a period of one year from the date of automatic cancellation. 8. 8. On a plain reading it is evident that in case of default in depositing three-fourth amount of the bid within the period prescribed, one-fourth amount of the bid deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and auction of land shall automatically stand cancelled. Under the second proviso on which reliance was placed, no doubt the Chairman has power to regularize the auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation within one year of such automatic cancellation if the successful bidder is prepared to pay three-fourth of the bid money plus interest @ 15% per annum upto the date of regularization of auction of land and, in addition, penalty at the rates mentioned therein, but it is clear that the power to regularize the auction notwithstanding the automatic cancellation of the allotment on deposit of the balance amount with interest and penalty is an enabling provision and does not confer any right on the applicant to claim such regularization and condonation. In terms of Clause (f) the balance amount was to be deposited within thirty days, and reckoned from 10.1986 or even 011.1986, the appellant was required to deposit the amount by 011.1986 or 012.1986. As mentioned above, there is no explanation why the amount was not deposited within the prescribed period. 9. The appellant was prosecuting studies in the United States at the relevant time. On his own saying he "happened to be in Jaipur at the time of auction. On his own saying, further, he went back to the United States and he is still residing there in California. Apparently he took the matter casually and we do not think he deserves any indulgence. In Lakshmanasami Gounder vs C.I.T. Selvamani & Ors., 1992 (1) SCC 91 in the context of revenue auction sale it was held that it is obligatory on the auction purchaser to deposit the amount within the prescribed period and non-compliance renders the initial deposit liable to forfeiture. 10. In these premises, we do no find any merit in the case of the appellant and as such, the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition does not require any interference by the Division Bench. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.