Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajit Kumar vs M.P. Housing And Infrastructure ... on 7 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 24800 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
AJIT KUMAR S/O MANILAL JI MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1.
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 84 STATION ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
ASHOK KUMAR S/O SHAITANMAL JI JAIN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: VYAPAR 3, MANGALMURTI, RATLAM (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SETHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI
RISHI AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
1.
BHOPAL CHIEF ESTATE OFFICER BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
2.
DEVELOPMENT BOARD UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
SHRIMAN ESTATE OFFICER M.P. HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
3.
DEVELOPMENT BOARD RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUNIL JAIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI KUSHAGRA
JAIN, ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated
31.08.2021, whereby the respondents have cancelled the allotment of
Plot No.HX-1 and gave information to the petitioner vide letter dated
28.09.2021.
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. Respondents No.1 to 3 issued an e-offer through MP Online for
the sale of Plot No.HX-1 situated at Ratanpuri, Ratlam reserved for local
bodies. Thereafter, vide Circular No.16 dated 17.09.2018, the
modification was done in it. The petitioners participated in the e-offer
and submitted an offer by quoting the price of Rs.3,45,70,000/- for the
allotment.
2.2. Vide order dated 05.06.2020, the aforesaid plot was allotted to
the petitioners. After the said allotment, the petitioners deposited
Rs.50,78,000/-. The petitioners came to know that there was an
encroachment on the said plot, therefore, applied for demarcation of the
said plot.
2.3. Vide letter dated 27.08.2020, the petitioners sought certain time
to deposit the balance amount of Rs.2,94,92,000/-. Vide letter dated
27.08.2020, the respondents directed the petitioners to deposit 10% of
the amount within one month i.e. up to 04.07.2020, 25% of the amount
within four months i.e. up to 04.10.2020 and the remaining amount
within a period of 12 months and the interest shall be paid separately.
2.4. Vide letter dated 26.09.2020, again the petitioners were directed
to deposit the balance amount of Rs.83,03,394/- up to 04.10.2020. The
petitioner deposited Rs.40,25,000/- and sought further time up to
30.11.2020. Again vide letter dated 06.10.2020, the petitioners were
directed to deposit amount of Rs.1,72,85,000/- by 26.09.2020. Vide
letter dated 07.06.2021, the petitioners sought further time on the ground
that due to COVID - 19, the lockdown has been imposed and their
business has been badly affected.
2.5. The respondents sent various letters to the petitioners to deposit
the balance amount with interest. When the petitioners could not deposit
the amount due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, finally vide letter dated
30.08.2021, the Chief Estate Officer, M.P. Housing & Infrastructure
Development Board, Bhopal granted approval to the Deputy
Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Ujjain for cancellation of the
allotment and forfeiture of the amount. In compliance of the aforesaid
communication, the Estate Officer, M.P. Housing Board, Ratlam
Division vide letter dated 28.09.2021 cancelled the allotment and
requested the petitioners to furnish bank details for the return of the
amount deposited by them after deduction of the registration charges.
Hence, the present petition is before this Court.
03. The petitioners are assailing the impugned order only on the
ground that due to COVID - 19 Pandemic, lockdown was imposed in
the entire country, therefore, they could not arrange the fund to deposit
the balance amount. During those difficult periods, their business was
badly affected and all payments were stopped. It is further submitted
that the sixth time the advertisement was issued for allotment of Plot
No.HX-1 but not a single buyer submitted any offer. The petitioners
were the only persons who agreed to purchase the said plot during
COVID - 19, hence, some leniency was liable to be shown towards
them. It is further submitted that still the petitioners are ready to deposit
the entire amount with interest.
04. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the Apex Court in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)
No.3 of 2020 (Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In Reference)
reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 extended the limitation in respect of all
judicial proceedings and period of license, permission, loan, repayment
of the loan during the COVID - 19 period. Therefore, respondents were
too harsh in cancelling the allotment due to the delay in payment of the
balance amount. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
petitioners are ready to deposit the balance amount with interest @ 8%
to the respondents along with the lease rent.
05. Shri Sunil Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
submits that as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the
petitioners were required to deposit the entire amount within a period of
one year. The petitioners were not due diligent and were lethargic in
depositing the amount as per the schedule agreed between the parties.
The petitioners purchased the plot during the COVID-19 period,
therefore, now on the pretext of the COVID - 19, the petitioners cannot
submit that due to the said pandemic, they could not arrange the fund for
deposit of the balance amount. The action of the respondents is in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment, in which
there is no such provision for extension of time. Now the market price
of the plot in question has gone high and after cancellation, fresh offers
are liable to be invited for allotment of the said plot. The petitioners may
apply in fresh auction proceedings if they are still willing the purchase
the plot. The petitioners were required to deposit the balance amount of
Rs.1,72,85,000/- on or before 04.06.2021. The respondents / Head
Officer has already issued Circular No.16 of 2018, hence, this petition is
liable to be dismissed.
06. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
07. On the evening of 24th March 2020, the Government of India
ordered a nationwide lockdown for 21 days, limiting the movement of
the entire 1.38 billion (138 crores) population of India as a preventive
measure against the COVID - 19 Pandemic in India. On 1 st May, 2020,
the Government of India extended the nationwide lockdown further by
two weeks until 17th May 2020. The second phase of unlock, Unlock
2.0, was announced for the period of 1 st to 31st July, 2020, with more
ease in restrictions. Unlock 3.0 was announced in August. Similarly,
Unlock 4.0 was announced for September and Unlock 5.0 for the month
of October. In the same way, Unlock 6.0 was announced for the month
of November, and Unlock 7.0 was announced for the month of
December.
08. In the year 2021, due to the largest wave of infection in the
country, several State Governments like Uttar Pradesh, M.P., Delhi etc.,
announced complete lockdowns in April 2021. The lockdown restricted
people from stepping out of their homes. All transport services-road, air
and rail-were suspended, with exceptions for transportation of essential
goods, fire, police and emergency services. Educational institutions,
industrial establishments and hospitality services were also suspended.
Services such as food shops, banks and ATMs, petrol pumps, other
essentials and their manufacturing were exempted. It was ordered by the
Government that anyone who fails to follow the restrictions can face up
to a year in jail. The GDP growth rate had fallen from 8.2% in January-
March 2018 to 3.1% in January - March 2020. In the first quarter of the
Financial Year 2020 - 21, this number went into negative. The GDP
growth rate for April - June 2020 was -23.9%, which happened to be the
worst ever in history. Crucial parameters like manufacturing,
construction, trade, hotel industry saw a decline and went into negative.
Manufacturing growth at -39.3%, Mining growth at -23.3%,
Construction growth at -50%, Trade & hotel industry growth at -47%.
With factories and workplaces shut down, millions of migrant workers
had to deal with the loss of income, food shortages and uncertainty
about their future. During this period lots of migration of labour
working in the industries took place which resulted into a loss of
production for years together. They went back to their native villages
and declined to come to the workplace.
09. It cannot be said that the petitioners' business was not affected
by this lockdown. The petitioners were allotted the plot on 05.06.2020
with a condition to deposit the entire sale consideration within a period
of three months. The petitioners were liable to pay the lease rent of
Rs.2,81,155/- in the month of June 2021 and thereafter, every year.
However, on a request made by the petitioners, the said period of three
months was extended. After the completion of the first phase, the second
phase of COVID came and lockdown was imposed. The Apex Court
took suo moto cognizance of this and stopped the running of the period
of limitation of all the statutory proceedings and later on extended the
period of limitation in every matter . In some cases, the Government
restrained all the authorities to take coercive action where period of
license or permission or lease were going to expire during those two
years. The observations and direction given by the Supreme Court of
India in suomoto Writ Petition are reproduced below:-
"5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by
learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on
public health and adversities faced by litigants in the
prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the
M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions:
5.1. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in
continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021,
27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from
15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the
purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general
or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi judicial
proceedings.
5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining
as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect
from 01.03.2022.
5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during
the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022,
notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation
remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90
days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period
of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater
than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
5.4. It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till
28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods
prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws,
which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting
proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal
can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. In view of the above, when the allotment of the plot was done in
favour of the petitioners during the COVID-19 Pandemic and was
cancelled during the said period was not warranted in view of the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Hence, the
impugned orders dated 31.08.2021 & 28.09.2021 are set aside.
11. The respondents are directed to calculate the balance amount
payable by the petitioners along with the interest @ 8% per annum. If
the petitioners pay the aforesaid amount within a period of six months in
two equal instalments, then the respondents shall execute an agreement
in favour of the petitioners. Over and above, the petitioners shall also
pay the lease rent from the date of allotment. It is made clear that the
impugned order has been set aside on the submission made by the
learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners are ready to deposit the
balance amount. If the petitioners fail to deposit the aforesaid amount,
then impugned orders dated 31.08.2021 and 28.09.2021 shall be treated
as revived and the petitioners shall pay the cost of Rs.50,000/- and lease
rent till that day to the respondents.
12.. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
