Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 356 (RAJ)

Yogesh Kumar Kasliwal v. The Secretary, JDA

2006-02-03

K.S.RATHORE

body2006
Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-Since, similar controversy is involved in both these writ petitions, the same are decided by this common order. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 721/1988 2. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 21.08.1987 and 19.01.1988 passed by the Jaipur Development Authority. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was studying in the United States of America in the year 1984. During vacation of the college, the petitioner was in Jaipur and come across with the notice published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 07.07.1986 issued by the Jaipur Development Authority regarding auction of plot No. J-48 Krishna Marg, C Scheme Jaipur. The petitioner also applied and participated in the auction proceedings and the petitioners bid being highest of Rs. 2,54,175/-at the rate of Rs. 912/-per sq. mtr., and was accepted. The petitioner was to deposit 5% cost of the total value at the spot and as such Rs. 12,800/-was deposited by the petitioner. The balance amount of 1/4th amount of the total value offered was to be deposited within 24 hours of the auction. This amount has not been deposited by the petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner is that balance amount of Rs. 50,744/-was deposited by the petitioner on 18.07.1986 with the auctioneer M/s Aditya Auction House, Jaipur and obtained receipt of the amount. 5. Thus, the Jaipur Development Authority vide notice dated 011.1986 informed the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 1,90,455.50. This amount was not deposited under the pretext that one Shri D.D. Goswami preferred a writ petition before this Court and same was registered as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 272/1987 and this Court vide interim order dated 10.02.1987 directed the Jaipur Development Authority not to confirm the sale of the aforesaid plot No. J-48. Thus, under this impression the petitioner has not deposited the aforesaid amount. Therefore, during this period, the petitioner was again informed vide letter dated 21.08.1987 by the JDA that since the petitioner failed to deposit required amount the offer accepted in favour of the petitioner for plot No. J-48 was cancelled. 6. The cancellation order is challenged on various grounds by way of this writ petition. The Jaipur Development Authority re-notified the auction of the plot No. J-48 and same was published in the Rajasthan Partika dated 07.03.1988. 6. The cancellation order is challenged on various grounds by way of this writ petition. The Jaipur Development Authority re-notified the auction of the plot No. J-48 and same was published in the Rajasthan Partika dated 07.03.1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the earlier auction proceedings the offer made on behalf of the petitioner was found highest and he has deposited 5% cost to the tune of Rs. 12,800/-and also deposited Rs. 50,744.00 with the Government auctioneer M/s. Aditya Auction House, Jaipur, in these circumstances, total amount Rs. 63,554/-has been deposited with the Jaipur Development Authority. Therefore, Jaipur Development Authority is estopped to re-auction the plot No. J-48. As the petitioner taken plea that on account of the interim order dated 10.02.1987 passed by this Court in another Writ Petition No. 272/1987,the JDA is not competent to ask for remaining ¾th amount of auction nor they could have made any confirmation until the stay order vacated finally and while issuing the fresh notice, the JDA even not taken care of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.02.1987 in Writ Petition No. 272/1987. 7. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the power of attorney holder of the petitioner has requested the JDA to extend time to deposit the balance amount but same has not been considered, therefore, entire action of re-auctioning the plot in question is contrary not only to law but also contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2770/1991 Satya Narain vs. The Jaipur Development Authority and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5382/1989 Ramdeo Bairwal vs. JDA. 9. Learned Counsel for the JDA has categorically stated that by notice dated 28.08.1986 which was addressed to the petitioner, the petitioner was duly intimated about the confirmation of the auction in his favour and further was informed to deposit the balance due amounting to the tune of Rs. 1,90,455.40/- within thirty days of the issuance of notice in accordance with the Condition No. 7 but the same was returned undelivered. 1,90,455.40/- within thirty days of the issuance of notice in accordance with the Condition No. 7 but the same was returned undelivered. Thereafter fresh notice was issued at his Bombay address and time was given to deposit the balance amount upto 10.1986 and it was also informed that in case the petitioner failed to deposit the amount due in accordance with Condition No. 7 of the auction notice, the allotment of the plot will be cancelled. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner was also informed but amount was not deposited. Therefore, the allotment was cancelled on 21.08.1987. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by Honble the Supreme Court in the case Lakshmanasami Gounder vs. C.I.T. Selvamani & Ors., reported in 1992 (2) JT 298 (SC) wherein Honble the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 36 held that “sale by public auction- Mandatory requirement that balance of sale amount be remitted within 30 days-Non compliance renders the forfeiture of earnest money and confirmation of the sale without compliance held illegal.” 11. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and documents and material available on record as well as the Judgment referred by the parties it is not disputed that the petitioner being highest bidder, his bid was accepted and plot in question was allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that 5% of the total amount of auction was deposited by the petitioner but the balance amount as required to be deposited within the period of thirty days, the petitioner is admittedly failed to deposit the same may be under pretext of the interim order passed in separate writ petition by this Court but even after the time was extended by the JDA and Power of Attorney Holder was also duly informed to deposit the amount within the time specified under the notice issued by the JDA but same was not deposited and the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any case in his favour. At this state when he is not complied with mandatory provisions of auction Condition No. 7 as stipulated in the notice and as per ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court, cancellation order of allotment in favour of the petitioner is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. At this state when he is not complied with mandatory provisions of auction Condition No. 7 as stipulated in the notice and as per ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court, cancellation order of allotment in favour of the petitioner is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3598/1988 13.The petitioner in this writ petition also challenged the auction proceedings itself as the plot No. J-48 situated in Krishna Marg is termed as open land and the petitioner is having preferential right over the allotment of the same in view of the reason that the open land is situated adjacent to plot No. J-44 of the petitioner and the sewage and drainage lines of his house passes through this open land and doors and windows of his house also opened towards the open land. The petitioner has been continuously requesting the then Urban Improvement Trust and the Jaipur Development Authority for allotment of this open land to the petitioner and on the ground of easementary right the petitioner is claiming right over the plot No. J-48 adjacent to his plot. 14.Having considered the submissions I am of the view that the petitioner can apply for allotment of the land but in any manner the petitioner only on the ground of easementary right cannot legally ask the allotment of this land. It is for the JDA to consider the same as it had already auctioned the plot in question and in any manner the petitioner cannot challenge the auction proceeding by way of this writ petition and as the petition of the original allottee is already rejected herein above, and the JDA has decided to re-auction the plot No. J-48, the petitioner can participate in the auction proceeding to get the same plot but in any case no legal right is accrued to the petitioner and no writ order or direction at this stage are required to be issued to the JDA regarding allotment of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to apply for the same before the JDA. 15.Consequently, this writ petition fails being devoid of merit and same is hereby dismissed.