Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Hukmi Chand v. Municipal Board, Nokha

2010-04-08

DINESH MAHESHWARI, JAGDISH BHALLA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal is directed against the order dated 11.04.2008 passed in CWP No. 5163/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners-appellants assailing the validity of the order dated 20.07.2006 passed by the State Government rejecting the representation made by them in relation to the auction proceedings for disposal of a parcel of land situated at Nokha, District Bikaner. 2. The writ petition leading to the present appeal has been in the third round of litigation concerning the disputed parcel of land situated at Ward No. 9 (Adarsh Colony), Nokha, earlier marked as Plot No. 79. The dispute has its genesis in the advertisements issued by the respondent Municipal Board, Nokha ('the Board') by way of the handbill dated 12.08.1981 (Annex.1) and another handbill dated 24.09.1981 (Annex.2) for public auction of the shops and cinema land. In these handbills, the disputed parcel of land was specified as "cinema land" ad-measuring 32000 sq.ft (200' x 160'). The terms and conditions of the auction (Annex.3), contained the stipulations, inter alia, to the effect that ¼th of the amount shall have to be deposited by the successful bidder immediately; and that after the Government sanction, the remaining amount shall have to be deposited within a month of receiving notice or within two months with 12% interest and, for failure to comply with this requirement, the sale shall stand cancelled with forfeiture of the amount. 3. The appellants participated in the auction held on 20.10.1981 and were found to be the highest bidders for the land in question for having offered an amount of Rs. 3,95,940/-. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 7,892/- as required towards earnest money while participating in the auction and further deposited a cheque bearing number 091756 dated 20.10.1981 for an amount of Rs. 91,068/-. 4. However, upon the matter having been sent for approval, the State Government, instead of granting approval for the sale of the said plot of land on the bid amount on the terms and conditions enumerated by the respondent Board, came out with different conditions in its order dated 04.02.1982 (Annex.4) that 10% of the bid amount of Rs. 91,068/-. 4. However, upon the matter having been sent for approval, the State Government, instead of granting approval for the sale of the said plot of land on the bid amount on the terms and conditions enumerated by the respondent Board, came out with different conditions in its order dated 04.02.1982 (Annex.4) that 10% of the bid amount of Rs. 3,95,940/- would be charged as rent for 15 years and, after this period and thereafter every 10 years, the lease would be required to be got renewed and the rent would be enhanced, by maximum 25%, on each renewal. 5. It appears from the material placed on record and the observations made in the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 that after receiving the aforesaid order dated 04.02.1982, the respondent Board in the first place, by its letter dated 06.05.1982, made a prayer to the Government to reconsider but when such a prayer was declined, informed the petitioners appellants accordingly. The petitioners-appellants took exception against the propositions so stated and pointed out by the communication dated 22.04.1983 (Annex.R/1/1) that the bid had been offered for the purpose of obtaining free-hold land as represented by the Board. It was further stated in the said communication dated 22.04.1983 that the conditions of sale could not be changed unilaterally; and that the remaining amount shall be deposited upon confirmation of the sale on free-hold basis and in case, the sale on free-hold basis was not acceptable to the Board, the appellants would be recovering the amount deposited with interest and damages. It appears that thereafter, the appellants represented the matter to the State Government too and finding no relief, preferred a writ petition (CWP No. 849/1984) before this Court that was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 02.02.1995 (Annex.7). 6. In the aforesaid order dated 02.02.1995 (Annex. 7), the learned Single Judge found no ground to show interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but observed that it were a fit case where the petitioners should make a representation to the respondents and upon making of such representation, the same be decided within a reasonable time. 6. In the aforesaid order dated 02.02.1995 (Annex. 7), the learned Single Judge found no ground to show interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but observed that it were a fit case where the petitioners should make a representation to the respondents and upon making of such representation, the same be decided within a reasonable time. When it was brought to the notice that the relevant record pertaining to the auction of the land in dispute was pending consideration with the Additional Director, Local Self Department, Jaipur on a representation made by the petitioners, the learned Single Judge directed that such representation be looked into and if that be not traceable, the petitioners would file a fresh representation and the same be decided at the earliest. 7. It has been the case of the petitioners-appellants that the fresh representation was submitted pursuant to the order of the Court on 10.02.1995 but the same was not responded and further representations were also sent by them from time to time but then, they received a letter dated 26.06.2000 from the Board stating that the auction of the plot in question in their favour had been cancelled by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in Local Self Department on 24.05.2000 and in terms of the Board's resolution dated 08.06.2000, they should obtain refund of the deposited amount. By the said resolution dated 08.06.2000, it was resolved by the respondent Board that the plot in question was not suitable for cinema construction and, therefore, the plan for shops be got approved from the Senior Town Planner, Bikaner and the plots be auctioned accordingly. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24.05.2000 (Annex. 12), the appellants preferred another writ petition in the second round of litigation in this Court, being CWP No. 2093/2000. The said writ petition came to be decided by the order dated 07.10.2003 (Annex.13) wherein, though the learned Single Judge took exception against insensitivity of the respondents to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 849/1984 (supra) but, upon the counsel for the respondents agreeing to reconsider the matter on representation, proceeded to dispose of the petition with the understanding that the representation of the petitioners shall be considered by the respondents and a fresh order shall be passed as per law. 9. 9. Pursuant to the order aforesaid, the Deputy Secretary to the Government in its Local Self Department proceeded to decide the representation made by the petitioners by the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 (Annex.15). The learned Deputy Secretary observed, inter alia, that in fact ¼th of the bid amount did not reach the Board on the date of auction because a cheque was deposited in the sum of Rs. 91,068/- and the receipt in that relation was issued on 16.11.1981, only after encashment; that at the relevant time as per the Circular dated 24.07.1971, the allotment of land for hotels/cinema halls was to be made only on rental basis and that the value of the land was to be determined by open auction or by invitation of tenders and further that lease was to be executed for 15 years in the first place and after this period and every 10 years thereafter, the lease was to be got renewed with revision of annual rent subject to the maximum increase by 25%; that the auction being subject to the approval of the State Government was a fact in the knowledge of the petitioners; that the Government's decision dated 04.02.1982 to approve disposal of the land in question on lease basis in accord with the terms of the Circular dated 24.07.1971 was communicated to the Board on 04.02.1982; that the Board asked for reconsideration of the matter by its letter dated 06.05.1982 but the request of the Board was not acceded to by the State Government and such a decision of the Government was duly communicated to the petitioners; that the petitioners, by their letter dated 22.04.1983, declined to accept the land for not being given on free-hold basis and requested for refund of the amount deposited by them with interest. The learned Deputy Secretary summed up the essential findings thus: " mijksDr rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd fnukad 18-10-1981 ls 20-10-1981rd dh x;h uhykeh dh 'krksZa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gw;s izkFkhZ }kjk fu;ekuqlkj mlh fnu ,d pkSFkkbZ jkf'k fudk; dks"k es tek ugha djok;h x;h FkhA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokn gSa fd izkFkhZ dks irk Fkk fd uhykeh jkT; ljdkj ds vuqeksnu ij gh Lohdk;Z gksxh rFkk uxj ikfydk dks cksyh Lohdkj djus o ugha djus dk vafre vf/kdkj gSA rRdkyhu fu;eksa esa Hkh uhykeh }kjk ewY; fu/kkZj.k djus ds i'pkr~ gksVy o flusek ds fy;s Hkwfe fdjk;s nsus ij gh nsus dk izko/kku Fkk rFkk mlh vk/kkj ij jkT; ljdkj dk fu.kZ; uxj ikfydk ds ek/;e ls izkFkhZ dks lwfpr fd;k x;k FkkA " 10. The learned Deputy Secretary noticed that the appellants had referred to the case of one Neelam Cinema Hall, Sanchore but found the facts of the said case different for being related to a later period and referable to the changed policy of the Government. The Deputy Secretary proceeded to the reject the representation made by the appellants but then, found that the amount deposited by them had been laying in deposit with the Municipal Board, Nokha since the year 1981 and hence, directed that the amount so deposited be refunded by the Board with interest @ 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2006, the petitioners preferred the writ petition wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal. 11. At this juncture, it may be noticed that the respondent Board proceeded to issue an auction notice dated 14.08.2006 for auction of commercial shops carved out on the land in question. The proposition for auction of the plots from out of the land in question was the subject matter of consideration in the prayer for interim relief in the aforesaid writ petition wherein, by the interim order dated 12.09.2006, the auction proceedings were permitted to be continued on the undertaking of the respondents not to confirm the bids. Later on, an application was filed on behalf of the respondents pointing out that the land in question had been auctioned for about Rs. 5 crores; and, while disposing the stay petition on 03.11.2006, the learned Single Judge modified the interim order and permitted the respondent Board to confirm the bids in its discretion and to proceed in the matter. 12. 5 crores; and, while disposing the stay petition on 03.11.2006, the learned Single Judge modified the interim order and permitted the respondent Board to confirm the bids in its discretion and to proceed in the matter. 12. It may also be pointed out that the aforesaid order dated 03.11.2006 was subjected to an intra-court appeal by the petitioners-appellants (SAW No. 819/2006) that was disposed of on 29.05.2007 by a Division Bench of this Court finding equity in favour of the subsequent auction-purchasers but while putting them to the terms of submitting undertaking to comply with the requirements in case the writ petition succeeding. The Division Bench also permitted the respondent Board on its request to go ahead with the auction of the other portions of the land in question subject to the condition that the purchasers shall be notified about the pendency of the writ petition. 13. Thereafter, the writ petition came to be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the impugned order dated 11.04.2008. On the aspects related with the position of law governing the case, the learned Single Judge observed, inter alia, that the disposal of urban land in the municipal areas in the State of Rajasthan was governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 ('the Rules of 1974') and as per Rule 3 thereof, the outright sale of the land in the specified towns stood abandoned and it was provided that there shall be the sale of lease-hold rights only on payment of premium as determined under the Rules; that as per Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974, the land for commercial purposes was to be disposed of by public auction and the land reserved for cinemas, luxury hotels and petrol pumps was to be disposed of in accordance with the directions as may be issued by the State Government from time to time; and that as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974, the sale or disposal of the urban land exceeding the value Rs. 1 lac was subject to the sanction of the State Government. 1 lac was subject to the sanction of the State Government. The learned Single Judge further observed that as per the Government Circular dated 02.04.1971, the allotment of land for hotels and cinema halls was permitted to be made only on rental basis and auctions were being held only for the purpose of determining the premium and when, after coming into force of the Rules of 1974, any fresh directions governing the allotment of land for construction of cinema halls were not laid down by the State Government and the policy underlying the Circular dated 02.04.1971 was followed, such decision of the Government could not be faulted with. 14. The learned Single Judge found no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the highest bid was not subject to confirmation of the Government with the observations that as per the terms of auction, the remaining ¾th of the bid amount was to be deposited only after receiving the approval of the State Government and even as per Rule 30 ibid, the sale was subject to the sanction of the State Government. The learned Single Judge further pointed out the settled position of law that if the sale is subject to confirmation, no concluded contract comes into existence until the sale is confirmed by the authority competent; that the highest auction bidder has no indefeasible right to claim the confirmation of sale; and that the authority vested with the power to confirm the sale is well within its rights to refuse the confirmation for valid reasons. 15. On the decision as taken and the proposition as stated by the State Government, the learned Single Judge observed that before granting sanction, the State Government was entitled to examine the reasonableness and legality of the auction proceedings; and when sale of land for cinema hall on free-hold basis was prohibited, the proposed sale on free-hold basis in pursuance of an auction conducted in contravention of the Rules of 1974 could not have been made. The learned Single Judge yet further observed that the auction having been conducted in contravention of the Rules of 1974 and the policy laid down, the State Government should have straight away cancelled the auction with a direction to hold fresh auction giving equal opportunity to all the persons aspirant for allotment of the land on rental basis. 16. The learned Single Judge yet further observed that the auction having been conducted in contravention of the Rules of 1974 and the policy laid down, the State Government should have straight away cancelled the auction with a direction to hold fresh auction giving equal opportunity to all the persons aspirant for allotment of the land on rental basis. 16. The learned Single Judge held that the offer made to the petitioners to accept the allotment of the land on rental basis having been declined, they had no surviving right to claim the said plot even on lease-hold basis. The learned Judge pointed out that the condition stated by the State Government by the order dated 04.02.1982 was not accepted by the petitioners; and, on the contrary, by the communication dated 22.04.1983, addressed to the Executive Officer of the respondent Board, they declined to accept the plot on leasehold/ rental basis and insisted for sale on free-hold basis and else, for refund of ¼th bid amount along with interest. Thus, according to the learned Single Judge, after such refusal by the petitioners-appellant, the auction bid did not survive for consideration. 17. While dealing with the aspect of rejection of representation by the impugned order dated 20.07.2006, the learned Single Judge observed that the submissions of the petitioners had been considered by the concerned authority in their entirety and objectively and it could not be said that by rejecting the representation, the Government had acted in illegal or arbitrary manner. The learned Single Judge further found that even the equity did not survive in favour of the petitioners when the respondent Board had already resolved to sell the land in question for construction of shops and the fresh auction conducted by the Board after approval of the State Government had indeed fetched the price in crores of rupees. The learned Single Judge observed that after a lapse of over 27 years, the petitioners, who had already declined to accept the allotment on the terms and conditions proposed by the State Government, have no right whatsoever to claim the said plot for construction of cinema either on free-hold basis or on lease-hold basis. 18. The learned Single Judge found no right in the petitioners to any relief nor any reason for indulgence by the Court at the given stage against public interest and concluded thus: "29. 18. The learned Single Judge found no right in the petitioners to any relief nor any reason for indulgence by the Court at the given stage against public interest and concluded thus: "29. On the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, the petitioners who had already declined to accept the allotment at the relevant time, on the terms and conditions proposed by the State Government, have no right whatsoever to claim the sale of the plot in question in their favour. Moreover, at this stage when the cost of the plot has increased in alarming proportion, any indulgence by this court to the petitioners on any of the grounds set out in petition shall be against the public interest. 30. Thus, viewed from any angle, the order impugned passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the petitioners and the fresh auction conducted by the respondent Board for allotment of the shop does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 19. Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the appellants had participated in the open auction held by the respondent Board and the Board did receive ¼th amount towards the highest bid offered by the appellants; that there was neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the auction proceedings and there was no reason that the sale was not finalised in favour of the appellants. According to the learned counsel, the Board, having itself invited the bids, was not entitled to turn around and suggest later any proposition contrary to such auction proceedings nor could have withdrawn from the auction and carve out a new plan in relation to the land in question. In regard to the Government's decision dated 04.02.1982, the learned counsel submitted that the said letter was based on the circular dated 24.07.1971 that had ceased to exist and stood superseded after coming into force of the Rules of 1974; and that the Government could not have imposed any condition contrary to those held out at the time of auction so as to frustrate the auction proceedings. 20. 20. The learned counsel further submitted that the entire consideration of the learned Single Judge stands vitiated for proceeding on altogether new grounds that were not even the basis of the order passed by the Government on 20.07.2006. The learned counsel elaborated that the impugned order was not passed by the Government with reference to Rule 3 but was made with reference to Rules 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1974 and thereunder it could never have been ordered that there shall be the requirement of renewal of lease after 15 years and of 10% of the auction price being the annual rent revisable every 10 years by 25%. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in holding that the auction was contrary to the Rules of 1974 whereas no Rule had been pointed out that was breached. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 remains ex-facie perverse when it proceeds on the wrong assumption that ¼th of the bid amount was not deposited in time; and when reliance has been placed on the Circular of the year 1971 that was no longer existing after promulgation of the Rules of 1974. 21. The learned counsel further contended that even when the auction was subject to approval of the Government, such powers of approval were required to be exercised in reasonable manner and the reasons ought to have been assigned specifically in the order passed by the Government; and that there being no reason for laying down different conditions, there being no reasons in passing the earlier orders stating different mode of alienation of the property in question, and baseless reasons having been supplied in the order dated 20.07.2006, the entire of the proceedings by the Government ought to have been quashed. The learned counsel yet further contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in assuming that the appellants had declined to accept the allotment at the relevant time whereas the appellants had not so declined but only agitated against unjust and unreasonable conditions that were sought to be imposed contrary to the Rules of 1974. The learned counsel argued that the alleged increase in the cost of land and the price allegedly fetched in later auction proceedings were hardly the relevant considerations qua the rights of the appellants who had been agitating the matter ever since the year 1981. The learned counsel argued that the alleged increase in the cost of land and the price allegedly fetched in later auction proceedings were hardly the relevant considerations qua the rights of the appellants who had been agitating the matter ever since the year 1981. 22. Per contra, while supporting the order impugned, the learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the only intention of the appellants had been to secure an outright sale that could not have been made in view of the specific prohibition contained in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1974. The learned counsel submitted that the appellants were aware of the fact that the proceedings, whatever conducted by the Board, were subject to the approval of the State Government and if the Government had decided not to approve the sale as proposed but held out the conditions as per the order dated 04.02.1982, the appellants cannot question the same. According to the learned counsel, for the decision of the State Government in imposing the conditions by the order dated 04.02.1982 and then, upon refusal of the appellants to accept those conditions, the rejection of their representation claiming sale of the plot of land for the consideration of Rs. 3,95,940/- on free-hold basis or in the alternative on 99 years' lease, cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel further submitted that the claim as made by the appellants, if countenanced, would be against the public interest where the land in question, in the subsequent auction proceedings, has fetched the price in crores of rupees. 23. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we are unable to find any reason to show interference in this matter. 24. It is clear on the face of the record that the appellants had only been the bidders in the auction proceedings conducted by the respondent Board that were, admittedly, subject to the approval of the State Government. Unless the bid was approved and confirmed by the State Government, no right was created in favour of the appellants for merely being the bidders; and there was hardly any scope for interference by the writ Court in this matter. Unless the bid was approved and confirmed by the State Government, no right was created in favour of the appellants for merely being the bidders; and there was hardly any scope for interference by the writ Court in this matter. In fact, the action of the Government in not confirming the bid and stating different conditions was sought to be questioned by the appellants in the first round of litigation (CWP No. 849/1984); and, at that stage itself, the learned Single Judge pointed out, and rightly so, that there was no scope for interference in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even when the learned Single granted indulgence to the appellants to the extent that the authorities concerned were directed to decide their representation, the substance of the matter had always been that the appellants were only the bidders in the auction proceedings that were subject to confirmation; and no right was created in the appellants unless the bid was confirmed by the competent authority. 25. The facts of this case make it clear that the bid stated by the appellants was not approved as such and instead, by the order dated 04.02.1982, the Government stated that the disposal of the land in question in favour of the appellants was approved on the condition that 10% of the bid amount would be charged as rent for 15 years and, after this period and thereafter every 10 years, the lease would be required to be got renewed and the rent would be enhanced, by maximum 25%, on each renewal. The propositions as stated by the Government in its order dated 04.02.1982, being not of unqualified and unconditional approval of the offer made by the appellants, could, at best, be treated as counter-offer to the appellants; and it was up to the appellants whether to accept the same or not. The clinching aspect of the matter remains that the appellants did not agree on the terms and conditions as stated by the Government and as communicated to them by the Board. The response as stated on behalf of the appellants in the communication dated 22.04.1983 (Annex. R/1/1) was that the bid had been given for the purpose of outright sale and would not have been given if the sale was proposed to be made on lease-hold basis. The response as stated on behalf of the appellants in the communication dated 22.04.1983 (Annex. R/1/1) was that the bid had been given for the purpose of outright sale and would not have been given if the sale was proposed to be made on lease-hold basis. While elaborating that there was a marked difference in free-hold sale and leasehold sale, it was stated on behalf of the appellants that the Board could not change the conditions of sale unilaterally; and that the remaining amount shall be deposited upon confirming the sale on free-hold basis and in case, the sale on free-hold basis was not acceptable to the Board, the appellants would be recovering the amount deposited with interest and damages. It was stated, inter alia, in the said communication dated 22.04.1983 that,- "6. You are, therefore, requested to kindly look into the matter and confirm if the sale of plot on freehold basis, in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction proclamation, is acceptable to you. On receipt of your confirmation to above effect, I shall deposit the remaining ¾th amount of sale - consideration and shall also take necessary steps in the matter. In case sale of plot on the terms and conditions on which it was auctioned, i.e. on free-hold basis, is not acceptable to you, then you are hereby informed to note that any variation in conditions of sale are not acceptable to me and in that event I would be entitled to recover the entire amount deposited with you together with interest and damages." 26. We are of the considered view that any likelihood of the exchanges between the parties crystallizing into an enforceable contract came to an end with the aforesaid communication dated 22.04.1983 as made by the appellant No. 2. The respondents did not accept the offer made by the appellants as such and at the same time, the counter-offer made by the respondents was not acceptable to the appellants. In the given status of the record, we are satisfied that no case of infringement of any existing legal right was made out for the intervention by the writ Court. 27. In the given status of the record, we are satisfied that no case of infringement of any existing legal right was made out for the intervention by the writ Court. 27. It appears, of course, that while issuing the order dated 04.02.1982 and even thereafter, the Government did not consider the representation of the appellants and thus, the learned Single Judge while deciding the first writ petition (CWP No. 849/1984) issued directions for decision on the representation. It is also true that in the first place, the Government proceeded rather cursorily in cancelling the auction proceedings but then, after directions of the learned Single Judge in the second writ petition (CWP No. 2093/2000), the representation was considered and decided by the detailed speaking order on 20.07.2006 and even while rejecting the representation, directions were issued to the respondent Board to return the deposited amount to the appellants with 12% interest. 28. Apart from the foregoing, after having gone through the material on record, we are satisfied that the representation as made by the appellants has been dealt with and considered by the Government objectively and on substance of the matter, the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 remains just and proper. Some of the submissions as made on behalf of the appellants about reference in the impugned order to the Circular dated 24.07.1971 that the same stood superseded with promulgation of the Rules of 1974 and about incorrect factual recital that ¼th amount was not timely deposited by the appellants, are hardly of any relevance so far the substance and merits of the case are concerned. It is also clear that the observations about not depositing of the amount on the very day of auction came to be made by the Deputy Secretary in the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 for the reason that the said amount was not deposited in cash on the very day of the auction but a cheque bearing number BG- 091756 was given by the appellants and the receipt (No. 8941) for the amount of Rs. 91,068/- was issued on 16.11.1981, only after encashment of the cheque and deposit of the amount in the bank account of the Board. 91,068/- was issued on 16.11.1981, only after encashment of the cheque and deposit of the amount in the bank account of the Board. Be that as it may, even if it be assumed that the appellants had deposited ¼th amount on 20.10.1981, the bid was nevertheless subject to confirmation of the Government and, as noticed, the Government did not confirm the same as such but gave out certain conditions that were not acceptable to the appellants. 29. So far the circular of the year 1971 is concerned, the same had essentially been referred in the order dated 20.07.2006 in the manner that the conditions stated in the Government's order dated 04.02.1982 were those as envisaged by the said circular. Whether the circular was as such operative or not, it is but clear from a bare reference to Rule 15 ibid, as applicable at the relevant time, that the land reserved for cinemas, luxury hotels and petrol pumps was to be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the State Government issued from time to time. If no fresh directions had been issued after coming into force of the Rules of 1974 in relation to the allotment of land for cinema purpose, the Government was not prohibited from following the policy underlying the circular issued earlier for such matters. 30. Moreover, we are unable to find any error, illegality or unreasonableness in what was proposed by the Government in its order dated 04.02.1982. With promulgation of the Rules of 1974, per its Rule 3, outright sale stood abandoned and the land could have been sold only on lease-hold basis. Neither the respondent Municipal Board could have sold the land on free-hold basis as assumed by the appellants nor the State Government could have approved any proposition for sale on free-hold basis. 31. On a comprehension of the facts available on record, we are satisfied that the basic intention of the appellants had been to force the respondent Municipal Board into an outright sale of the land in question and the bid itself was stated with such intent alone. The suggestion in the alternative as lately made on behalf of the appellants that they were ready to have the land on 99 years' lease basis was only an attempt to give out belatedly another offer and we find no reason that such a proposition could have been accepted. 32. The suggestion in the alternative as lately made on behalf of the appellants that they were ready to have the land on 99 years' lease basis was only an attempt to give out belatedly another offer and we find no reason that such a proposition could have been accepted. 32. The other submission as made on behalf of the appellants that the Board was seeking to turn around and take different stand has only been noted to be rejected. As noticed, the Board in the first place even made a prayer to the State Government to reconsider its decision dated 04.02.1982. However, with the State not yielding to its prayer and the appellants sticking to their ground, when the proposition of disposal of the land in terms of the earlier auction notice was not materializing, the Board, in the given state of affairs, was not at all at fault in formulating different scheme for the land in question. Another limb of submissions that the learned Single has proceeded on different grounds than those stated in the impugned order dated 20.07.2006 is equally baseless. The learned Single has dealt with the matter in accord with the law applicable; and could not have ignored the relevant provisions of law even if the not mentioned in so many words in the order dated 20.07.2006. We are unable to find even a semblance of right where for any writ could have been issued in favour of the appellants. Moreover, all the considerations of equity definitely stood counter to the claim as made by the appellants. The writ Court could not have simply ignored the fact that the land in question, with the auction sale now made, fetched the price of about 5 crores of rupees. The writ petition was liable to be, and has rightly been, dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 33. Accordingly, and as a result of the aforesaid, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal dismissed. *******