Bajrang Builder vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 6323 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40421 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Bajrang Builder
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sunil Kumar Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and perused the record.

The petitioner herein is an auction purchaser of the plot in question namely Plot No. H/Com-1 measuring 579.20 sq.m., bid of which was submitted by him on 28.7.2015.

The allotment letter dated 8.10.2015 records that the plot in question has been allotted to the petitioner being the highest bidder. The total amount of Rs. 57,500.00/- which was the bid amount, has not been deposited by the petitioner till date.

It is an admitted fact of the matter that the petitioner has deposited only an amount of Rs. 18 Lacs and odd, which was earnest money, 20% of the bid amount and after acceptance of the bid and issuance of the allotment letter dated 8.10.2015, not a single penny has been deposited by the petitioner and a dispute has been raised about high tension wire line going above the plot in question.

In previous round of litigation the petitioner came to this Court in Writ-C No. 6937 of 2018 (M/s Bajrang Builders vs. State of U.P. and 5 others), which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 21.2.2018 directing the District Magistrate/Collector concerned to decide the representation moved by the petitioner.

The order dated 21st April, 2018 passed by the Collector, Kanpur Nagar categorically records that the petitioner had submitted a bid of the plot in question and the same was allotted on "as is where it is basis". After acceptance of the bid in order to avoid the payment, the petitioner raised a dispute with regard to the high tension wire going above the plot in question.

In any case, the petitioner had not deposited the entire auction money. The application for restoration has been filed by the petitioner but he did not deposit the restoration fee. It is categorically recorded that the petitioner is not entitled for restoration of the plot in question, inasmuch as, the allotment letter dated 8.10.2015 was only an offer.

Having noted the above, in view of the admitted fact, the petitioner has not deposited the auction money under the allotment letter dated 8.10.2015, no interference can be made on the decision of rejection of representation of the petitioner, that too after a period of more than 4 years.

Insofar as the order dated 26.8.2022, subject matter of challenge herein, the same is only reiteration of the order dated 21.2.2018.

The petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity in the order impugned.

The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 28.2.2023

Brijesh