Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1003 (RAJ)

Vineet Jindal Son of Shri Ramesh Chand Jindal v. Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan)

2017-04-18

M.N.BHANDARI

body2017
ORDER : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23.9.2016. By the aforesaid order, auction of the plot, for which petitioner had given highest bid, was cancelled due to failure to deposit the amount. 2. It is a case where respondents issued advertisement on 3.3.2008 for auction of plot. The petitioner stood highest bidder for plot No.25, situated near Chetak Park, Dausa Road, Sawai Madhopur. He deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,541/- towards 1/4th amount. The petitioner failed to deposit remaining 3/4th amount. According to the petitioner, he was willing to deposit the amount but the respondents did not call him to do so. He had send several representations with a request to call him so as to deposit 3/4th amount, however, in absence of call, amount could not be deposited. 3. As per the terms and conditions and even as per the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules of 1974'), a successful bidder is required to deposit 3/4th amount of the bid within one month of the acceptance of the bid. There is no provision to invite the bidder to come and deposit remaining 3/4th amount, rather, it has to be tendered by the bidder himself. The petitioner unnecessarily made correspondence with the respondents to get a call for deposition of the amount for years together but did not deposit the amount. As per the Rules of 1974, failure to deposit the amount results in automatic cancellation of the auction of the plot. The petitioner unnecessarily made correspondence with the respondents to get a call for deposition of the amount for years together but did not deposit the amount. As per the Rules of 1974, failure to deposit the amount results in automatic cancellation of the auction of the plot. Relevant part of the Schedule A appended to the Rules of 1974 is quoted hereunder for ready reference - "(f) (I) 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 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 thirty days interest @ 15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of acceptance of the bid: 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: Provided further that the board may regularise such auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation within a period of ten months from the date of such automatic cancellation if the successful bidder is prepared to pay the three-fourth amount of the bid money plus interest @ 15% per annum upto the regularisation of auction of land and in addition also an amount of penalty at the following rates :- Amount of the bid money Penalty after the date of automatic cancellation. (a) not exceeding Rs.5,000/- Rs.250/- p.m. (b) exceeding Rs.5,000/- & upto Rs.10,000/- Rs.500/- p.m. (c) exceeding Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,000/- p.m. (d) the amount of penalty mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c) above shall not exceed the principal amount. (ii) After the expiry of the period of ten months from the date of the said automatic cancellation, the board shall have no power to regularise such auction of land in any case. (iii) The board, if it considers necessary in its interest, may refer the case to the State Government for regularisation even after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. (iii) The board, if it considers necessary in its interest, may refer the case to the State Government for regularisation even after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. The State Government, after considering the recommendations made by the board, may permit such regularisation on payment by the bidder, the amount of bid plus interest and penalty as provided in sub-clause (i) above upto the month in which the case was referred to State Government by the Board : Provided that after depositing one-fourth of the amount of bid by the successful bidder, if he is restrained/not allowed to deposit the remaining amount by any act to the board or the State Government, as the case may be or resultant to any order of the court or any legal proceedings, the interim period shall not count for the purpose of calculating the amount of such penalty, forfeiture of the one-fourth amount or automatic cancellation of the auction." 4. The Schedule A under rule 14 of the Rules of 1974 provides period to deposit the amount after auction. The petitioner has not deposited 3/4th amount till date thus as per the Rules of 1974 allotment get cancelled automatically. Therefore, prayer made by the petitioner to set aside impugned order dated 23.9.2016 cannot be accepted. 5. The petitioner has made reference of acceptance of 3/4th amount of bid in favour of few auction purchasers. It is in reference to the auction made in the year 2014. The acceptance of the amount is vide resolution dated 8.5.2015. Reference of para 3 of the resolution has been given but I find that the auction therein was made in the year 2014 and the Municipality is at liberty to regularise the delay if it is not of more than 10 months. 6. If the respondent Municipality has regularised the delayed period upto 10 months then it is within their rights, however, if they have exceeded to the period then illegality committed by them cannot be perpetuated. 7. In the instant case, delay is not of few months but of 8 years, that too, when petitioner was knowing about his obligation to deposit 3/4th amount. Other than showing willingness, payment was not made by the petitioner resulting in automatic cancellation of the auction. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed.