Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 721 (RAJ)

RIICO Limited v. Varun Khandelwal

2020-12-07

PRAKASH GUPTA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Vide this order, above mentioned three appeals would be disposed of. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9301/2018 was filed by M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "Company") and it was prayed that: "(i) that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondents to consider and re-allot the Industrial Plot No. F-28N at Malvia Industrial Area, Jaipur on preferential basis under Rule 24(4) of the Rules, 1979 in favour of the petitioner. (ii) that by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be restrained from auctioning the Industrial Plot No. F-28N Malvia Industrial Area, Jaipur in furtherance of their notice of Inviting bid published in Rajasthan Patrika on 24.4.2018 (Annexure P-5). (iii) or any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case. (iv) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Varun Khandelwal had also filed writ petition claiming following relief: (i) By ordering the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the letter/representation/objections dated 7.9.2017 on its merits within a period of 15 days; and (ii) alternatively ordering the respondent no. 4 to place the request of the petitioner for re-allotment of the subject plot before the IDC to consider the same in accordance with law; and (iii) By issuing a suitable writ to directing the respondent no. 4 to dispose off the Annexure P 4 in accordance with law especially the mandate of the Act of 1964 and the Rules made thereunder; and (iv) to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the interest of the justice for humble petitioner and on the grounds of equity, justice and good conscience; and (v) to award cost of this writ petition." 3. Vide the impugned order dated 16th July, 2018, learned Single Judge has disposed of both the writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals by RIICO and M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. 4. Vide the impugned order dated 16th July, 2018, learned Single Judge has disposed of both the writ petitions. Hence, the present appeals by RIICO and M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Company has submitted that his only prayer was that the application filed by the Company for re-allotment of the industrial plot under Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1979 (for short, "the Rules of 1979") be considered. Learned counsel for the company has submitted that he has no objection if the impugned order is set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the Company has further submitted that Varun Khandelwal was not their tenant. In-fact, Varun Khandelwal had filed a petition no. 443/2016 before the Rent Tribunal claiming himself to be in possession of the property. Learned counsel has submitted that in the said petition, company was impleaded by Varun Khandelwal through his father and not the present Director. The said proceedings are still pending and in the said proceedings, the company had moved an application and has been impleaded as a respondent. In-fact, Varun Khandelwal had never been inducted as a tenant by the Company and had no locus to file the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for Varun Khandelwal, on the other hand, has opposed the appeals. Learned counsel has submitted that Varun Khandelwal was in possession of the industrial plot as a tenant and possession had been taken from him by RIICO without following due process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the RIICO has submitted that the impugned order be set-aside and RIICO will decide the representation/application filed by the company under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 as well as the objections/representation filed by Varun Khandelwal. 8. We have gone through record available on the file carefully. 9. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed as under: "14. Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that admittedly, the physical possession of the property has been taken over from the petitioner-Varun Khandelwal who at that time was having possession of the property. The proceedings between the original allottee namely; Medical Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner-Varun Khandelwal were undergoing before the Rent Tribunal. Having heard counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that admittedly, the physical possession of the property has been taken over from the petitioner-Varun Khandelwal who at that time was having possession of the property. The proceedings between the original allottee namely; Medical Designs (India) Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioner-Varun Khandelwal were undergoing before the Rent Tribunal. It is on account of cancellation of the allotment, which has been upheld by this Court, that the RIICO took over possession. However, it is to be noted that even if the petitioner was holding the property as a tenant of the original allottee, possession from the petitioner could not have been taken over forcefully without following due procedure of law. 15. Thus, the action of the petitioner-M/s. Medical Designs India Private Ltd. through its power of attorney holder in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9301/2018 is clearly an abuse of the process of Court to take advantage. It is apparent that M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. earlier filed SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1909/2015 informing that they have let out the premises to Varun Khandelwal who was carrying out industrial activities by the name of Usha Air Conditioners & Refrigeration on the said Plot No. F-28(N) at Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur. The litigation resulted in recording of statement by this Court through RIICO that the plot was not being utilized and there was no production on the plot for 28 years although the plot was under possession of Varun Khandelwal who was carrying out industrial activities. Since M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. could not get the place vacated from Varun Khandelwal in the suit preferred before the Rent Tribunal, upon dismissal of his writ petition, the RIICO took decision of the property as if it was a vacant land and dispossessed Varun Khandelwal and now the petitioner M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. has preferred the another writ petition i.e., the present writ petition for claiming repossession of the plot claiming benefit of Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979. 16. 16. In view of above, it is apparent that the situation does not change in the present scenario and bonafides of the petitioner are not apparently for setting up an industry for which the plot had been allotted and at the same time, the petitioner, in one way or the other, is seeking to get possession of the plot and the action of the RIICO and the petitioner M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. thus appears to be collusive. 17. In these circumstances, it was incumbent on the respondent RIICO to have taken a decision when the facts were brought to their knowledge and merely because the Civil Suit has been dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction, by allowing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the rights of the petitioner could not have been curtailed forcefully and his eviction could not have been done without following due procedure. The action of the RIICO in forcefully taking possession from the petitioner is thus held to be unjustified and illegal. 18. The petitioner shall have a right of restoration of possession from the RIICO. However, the RIICO shall be free to take up all proceedings in terms of the provisions contained under the Rules of 1979 and if such proceedings are undertaken, the petitioner shall be entitled to set up his claim in terms of Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 with regard to re-allotment if so required. 19. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) is imposed on the RIICO for forcefully and wrongfully taking over possession from the petitioner and taking note of the facts of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 22425/2017, which has been heard alongwith this writ petition, this Court restrains the respondent-RIICO from auctioning the plot in question in the present case and is directed to first take decision relating to Rule 24(4) in relation to petitioner Varun Khandelwal in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 22425/2017." 10. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the prayer made by petitioner Varun Khandelwal. So far as the petitioner Varun Khandelwal is concerned, he had sought that his objections/representation dated 7.9.2017 be decided within a period of 15 days or allow him to place his request for re-allotment of the plot-in-question. 11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the prayer made by petitioner Varun Khandelwal. So far as the petitioner Varun Khandelwal is concerned, he had sought that his objections/representation dated 7.9.2017 be decided within a period of 15 days or allow him to place his request for re-allotment of the plot-in-question. 11. Since the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has travelled beyond the prayer made by petitioner Varun Khandelwal, we are of the considered view that the appeals deserve to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 16th July, 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside. However, RIICO is directed to dispose of the representation/application filed by the company under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 as well as the objections/representation filed by Varun Khandelwal expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within 30 days of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. Consequently, stay applications and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. Appeal Allowed