Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 667 (JK)

Jammu Development Authority v. S. Paramjeet Singh

2022-12-02

RAJESH SEKHRI, TASHI RABSTAN

body2022
JUDGEMENT/ORDER : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1054/2013 and OWP No. 1483/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions passed the following order/directions: i. quashed cancellation letter No. JDA/TN/244/1/272, dated 02.08.2001. Vide the said letter allotment of Plot No. 244, Sector No. 1, Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu in favour of writ petitioner came to be cancelled, besides forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 4.15 lacs deposited by the writ petitioner with the official writ respondents. ii. quashed Auction Notice dated 08.12.2010. iii. quashed letter of allotment, bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010 issued in favour of one Mr. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4, allotting him the plot-in-question. iv. official writ respondents were also commanded to formally allot Plot No. 244, measuring 30' x 60' situated in Sector No. 1, Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu in favour of writ petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the appeal file as well as the record produced by the learned counsel representing the Jammu Development Authority. 3. Admittedly, the plot-in-question was allotted to the writ petitioner after he was found to be the highest bidder pursuant to Auction Notice dated 12.04.1999, offering an amount of Rs. 8,30,000/-. He is stated to have deposited 50% of the total bid price within the stipulated period and the balance amount of Rs. 4.15 lacs was to be deposited within next six months, failing which he had to pay 18% interest on the delayed payment. 4. The stand of writ respondents is that since the writ petitioner had failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period and even not responded to several letters/notices issued by the JDA, the writ respondents had no option but to cancel the allotment vide cancellation letter No. JDA/TN/244/1/272, dated 02.08.2001 and re-auction the said plot vide notice dated 08.12.2010, which ultimately came to be re-allotted to one Mr. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4 vide letter of allotment, bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010. 5. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4 vide letter of allotment, bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010. 5. However, the stand of writ petitioner is that he was never asked by the official writ respondents to come for execution of the lease deed or taking over the possession of the plot-in-question nor he ever received letters or notices from the office of JDA asking him to deposit the balance bid amount, rather he offered the balance payment to writ respondents 2 & 3, but the same was avoided by them on one or the other pretext. His further stand is that the cancellation letter was issued at his back without providing him an opportunity of being heard and without following the established procedure. 6. Now, for deciding the controversy, the moot question to be considered is: whether the writ petitioner had ever received the letters or notices issued by the office of JDA asking him to deposit the balance bid amount. 7. A perusal of the application form for allotment of plot-in-question reveals that the writ petitioner Paramjeet Singh while applying for the plot-in-question at Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony had specifically mentioned his postal address as "Trikuta Nagar Ext. 3/574,". 8. When the writ petitioner was found to be the highest bidder, he was informed by the Secretary, JDA, Jammu to deposit 50% of the premium within 30 days. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said communication hereunder: OFFICE OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN, JAMMU DEV. AUTHORITY, JAMMU Sh. Paramjit Singh, S/o Sh. Amrik Singh, R/o 3/574, Trikuta Nagar Extn., Jammu. Sub: Allotment of Plot in Trikuta Nagar Colony, Jammu. Sir/Madam, We are pleased to offer you plot No. 244 in Sector No.1 measuring 30' x 60' in Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony Jammu on the basis of highest bid offered by you at a premium of Rs. 8,30,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirty Thousands) only on lease hold basis as per the standard terms and conditions of the authority. You are requested to kindly deposit 50% of the premium within 30 days from the date of issuance of this letter. The balance 50% amount shall be payable within 60 (sixty) days thereafter. In case first instalment of 50% payment is not made within the stipulated time, the offer shall be withdrawn and earnest money forfeited. You are requested to kindly deposit 50% of the premium within 30 days from the date of issuance of this letter. The balance 50% amount shall be payable within 60 (sixty) days thereafter. In case first instalment of 50% payment is not made within the stipulated time, the offer shall be withdrawn and earnest money forfeited. In case balance 50% is not made within 60 days from the date fixed for 2nd instalment, 18% interest shall be charged on belated payment and in case of default beyond 6 months, the allotment shall be cancelled and the earnest money alongwith payment of 1st instalment shall be forfeited. Secretary, Jammu Dev. Authority, Jammu." 9. Admittedly, the writ petitioner on receiving the said communication deposited 50% of the premium within the stipulated period. Further, it is to be seen here that in the said communication the address of writ petitioner has rightly been mentioned as 3/574, Trikuta Nagar Extn, Jammu, that is, what the writ petitioner had mentioned in his application form for allotment of the plot-in-question. However, the record reveals that in the subsequent communications from the Jammu Development Authority, i.e., in communication dated 23.09.1999, communication dated 28.10.1999, communication dated nil at page 8 of the record, communication dated 10.03.2000 and in communication dated 02.05.2001, the address of writ petitioner had been mentioned as 3/574, Nanak Nagar, Jammu, instead of Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. Even in communication bearing No. JDA/TN/244/1/272, dated 02.08.2001, whereby the allotment of plot-in-question, made in favour of writ petitioner, came to be cancelled, the address of writ petitioner has been mentioned as 574/3, Nanak Nagar, Jammu, instead of Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. Further, on the registered envelope containing communication dated 02.08.2001 as well as on the acknowledgment annexed thereto, the address of writ petitioner had been mentioned as Nanak Nagar, Jammu, instead of Trikuta Nagar, Jammu. Even the acknowledgment does not reflect the signature of writ petitioner admitting the fact that he had received the communication dated 02.08.2001. And, on the envelope itself a report dated 11.08.2001 has been made by the Postman that the "addressee not known. Returned to sender." It is so only because of wrong address of writ petitioner on each communication sent to him. Once the address itself was wrong, then how could the writ petitioner would have known about the developments going on with respect to the plot-in-question. Returned to sender." It is so only because of wrong address of writ petitioner on each communication sent to him. Once the address itself was wrong, then how could the writ petitioner would have known about the developments going on with respect to the plot-in-question. It is nothing but a sheer negligence on the part of officials of JDA. Thus, the fault, if any, lies with the Jammu Development Authority and not on the part of writ petitioner. 10. Further, when the writ petitioner came to know about re-auction of the plot-in-question through news paper, he made a request to the Vice Chairman, JDA vide communication dated 16.12.2010 not to go for reauction as he was ready to make the balance payment. But, without affording him an opportunity of being heard, the JDA went with the re-auction and allotted the plot-in-question in favour of respondent No.4 despite the fact that a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2010 in OWP No. 1483/2010, filed by writ petitioner Paramjeet Singh, had directed the JDA to maintain status-quo with respect to the plot-in-question. Although, the status-quo order was passed on 21.12.2010, yet the then Secretary, JDA, Jammu contemptuously and in complete violation of Court order issued communication bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010 allotting the plot-in-question in favour of one Mr. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4 subject to certain conditions. 11. Further, once the writ petitioner was ready to make the balance payment and made an application to this effect on 16.12.2010 on coming to know through news papers with respect to re-auction of plot-in-question, the Vice Chairman, JDA was expected to afford an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner before going for the re-auction, that too when the JDA itself was at fault by sending communications to the writ petitioner at the wrong address. Thus, the writ petitioner has been condemned unheard. Therefore, we are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that the party must have reasonable opportunity to present his case and that the illegal and arbitrary exercise on the part of official writ respondents qua the writ petitioner in law cannot sustain. 12. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 12. Viewed thus, we are not inclined to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed along with connected CMs upholding the judgment and order of learned Single Judge. Caveat No. 718/2022 is hereby discharged. 13. Registry to return the record against proper receipt.