Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 287 (JK)

Ab. Aziz Dhobi v. State

2010-05-14

Sunil Hali

body2010
1. Evacuee department published a notification for information of general public, for leasing out five plots carved out on the evacuee property at Methan Channpora under survey no. 2567. The condition precedent for applying was that the application should be accompanied with a CDR worth Rs. 25,000/- pledged to the Custodian. The minimum reserved price per kanal was Rs. 4 Lacs with Rs. 500/- as ground rent per annum. The successful bidders were required to deposit 1/4th of the premium immediately after the closure of the bid and the balance amount was to be deposited within one month from the date of auction. 2. After holding the auction, petitioner was declared as a successful bidder for plot no.1 with a premium of Rs. 5 lacs 1/4th of the premium amount, was deposited by the petitioner immediately which has been acknowledged by the respondents vide receipt dated 22.11.2001. The bid was confirmed by the Minister concerned and as a consequence of which the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining premium amount of Rs. 3.75 lacs within three days vide communication dated 29.01.2003, which amount was accepted by the respondents on 15.02.2003 by issuing a receipt of the same. After deposit of the premium amount in full, respondents were required to handover the possession of the plot to the petitioner. This has not happened though petitioner was assured by the respondents that the plot would be handed over to him. 3. It transpires that the auction was revoked by the Minister concerned and a fresh auction was ordered to be made. The other successful bidders questioned this order in a civil court as a result of which the possession of the plots could not be handed over to the petitioner. After the conclusion of the litigation, the Custodian General passed an order dated 21.08.2008 whereby Plot nos. 8 and 6-7 were allotted to the proforma respondent nos. 4 and 5. After acquiring the knowledge about these allotments, the petitioner approached the respondents for handing over the possession of the plot to him but he was asked to submit a representation which was submitted by him. Despite having submitted the representations, no decision was taken by the respondents to handover the plot to the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 4. Despite having submitted the representations, no decision was taken by the respondents to handover the plot to the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that allotment of the plot in terms of the auction notice and depositing the premium amount in full, the contract stood concluded and, as such, respondents had no other option but to handover the plot to the petitioner. He further contends that proforma respondents were allotted the plots vide communication dated 21.08.2008, whereas the petitioner has been denied the possession of the plot till date. 5. Respondents, on the other hand, have contended that the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of the auction notice as he failed to deposit the balance premium amount within a period of three days. The amount was deposited by the petitioner on 15.02.2003 instead of 02.02.2003, as required under the notice. It is further contended that the amount deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner, which he has refused to accept. It has further been stated that none of the rights of the petitioner have been fructified and, as such, petitioner has no right to claim possession of the plot. It further reveals from the objections that in pursuance of the directions of the Court dated 17.10.2008, the case of the petitioner has been sent to the Administrative Department for allotment of the plot. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The short controversy involved in this petition is as to whether the petitioner had acquired any right to seek possession of the plot. In this respect it has to be noted that mere participation in the auction process would not confer any right on the petitioner, however, acceptance of his bid and consequent deposit of the premium amount, creates a right in the petitioner as the contract stands concluded with the respondents. 8. Respondents cannot escape the responsibility in not handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents that premium amount has been deposited beyond the period of three days, cannot be accepted as a ground for denying him the right to get the possession of the said plot. 8. Respondents cannot escape the responsibility in not handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner. The stand of the respondents that premium amount has been deposited beyond the period of three days, cannot be accepted as a ground for denying him the right to get the possession of the said plot. Once the amount was deposited by the petitioner, even though after expiry of three days, same was accepted by the respondents without any reservation. By accepting the amount, the respondents have waived the condition of depositing the amount within three days. 9. Even otherwise also the recommendations made by the Custodian General on 13.08.2009 clearly bears this fact that petitioner is eligible for allotment of the plot and his case is under consideration before the Government. 10. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to handover the possession of Plot No.1 at Methan Channpora under survey no. 2567 within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is received by them.