Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1319 (RAJ)

Firoz Khan v. Rajasthan Housing Board

2018-05-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner purchased a M.I.G.-B house in the Housing Board Scheme, Sirohi. Bid of Rs. 20 lacs made by the petitioner was accepted and allotment letter dated 8.9.2016 was issued to the petitioner. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit the entire auction price within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. 3. It may be stated here that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the reserve price i.e. 2 lacs on 1.7.2016. However, the petitioner claims to have been prevented from depositing the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 17,79,546/- by the scheduled last date i.e. 7.11.2016 for reasons beyond his control. The respondents issued a notice Annexure-4 dated 1.12.2016 to the petitioner requiring him to deposit the challan to prove deposit of the amount on or before 7.11.2016 with a consequence that failure to do so would result in cancellation of allotment with forfeiture of pre-deposit amount. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 20,464/- as processing fee in an apparent endeavour to show that the period for deposition of balance amount stood extended. 4. The respondents have refuted this claim of the petitioner and claim that no order of extension of time was ever passed. 5. However, notices Annexure-6 dated 22.3.2017 and Annexure-7 dated 30.3.2017 were issued to the petitioner conveying that he should deposit the balance purchase amount on or before 31.3.2017 and take possession of the house in question failing which the allotment would stand cancelled. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount by the date stipulated in the notices and instead issued a legal notice dated 27.4.2017 to the respondents requiring them to accept the balance payment and issue the final allotment letter. However, the respondents issued the cancellation order Annexure-9 dated 21.8.2017 whereby the allotment of the above house made to the petitioner was cancelled on account of failure to deposit the bid money in time and the pre bid deposit made by the petitioner was forfeited. The said order is challenged in this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The said order is challenged in this writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition claiming that the petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief because he failed to pay the bid money within the scheduled period as per the allotment letter. 7. It may be noted here that this Court, while entertaining the writ petition, on 15.1.2018 stayed the allotment cancellation order dated 21.8.2017 subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 20 lacs with the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner states, the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 20 lacs with the respondent. He expressed that the petitioner is ready to deposit the current market value of the house in question. 8. With these submissions, Mr. Mardia prays that this Court should take a liberal view and direct the respondents to restore the allotment made in favour of petitioner. 9. Learned counsel Mr. P.C.Sharma appearing for the respondents submits that the allotment of the house may be restored subject to the condition of petitioner depositing the market value of the plot in question as on date and that the forfeiture of the pre bid deposit may not be disturbed. 10. I have appreciated the arguments advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. Though the respondents have denied that any express order of extension of time for depositing the balance bid price was passed in favour of the petitioner after 7.11.2016 but considering the very fact that they issued the two notices dated 22.3.2017 and 30.3.2017 giving a window upto 31.3.2017 to the petitioner for depositing the money and taking possession of the house allotted to him by itself gives rise to inference that the time for depositing the balance sale price was extended. However inspite of opportunity given in the month of March, 2017, the amount of Rs. 20 lacs was deposited under this Court's order and well after issuance of the order of cancellation of allotment dated 21.8.2017. 11. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves restoration of allotment of the house in question subject to following terms and conditions:- (I) 50% of the pre bid amount deposited by the petitioner shall stand forfeited. 11. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves restoration of allotment of the house in question subject to following terms and conditions:- (I) 50% of the pre bid amount deposited by the petitioner shall stand forfeited. (II) The petitioner shall approach the respondent no.2 with an offer for present market value of the plot in question. (III) Thereafter after making appropriate adjustment in the money already deposited by the petitioner vis a vis the present market value of the house in question, the order Annexure-9 dated 21.8.2017 whereby the allotment of House No. 2-A-33 made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled shall stand revoked and the respondent Housing Board shall hand over possession of the house to the petitioner. 12. The writ petition as well as the stay application are disposed of in these terms. The requisite exercise in this regard shall be completed within thirty days from today.