Rajasthan High Court

Soni Shikshan Samiti vs P.D. Poddar Welfare And Development ... on 22 November, 2023

Author: Ganesh Ram Meena

Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena

[2023:RJ-JP:32155]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25637/2018

Soni Shikshan Samiti, E-33, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, A Society

Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The Rajasthan Societies

Registration Act, 1958, Through Its President Shri Deepak Kumar

Son Of Shri Ram Prakash Verma, Aged About 47 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. P.D. Poddar Welfare And Development Society, Through

Its Secretary Nitin Agarwal Son Of Shri Prahlad Prasad

Gupta Resident Of House No. 83, Mahal Khaas Road, Kila

Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur Through Its
Secretary, Bharatpur (Raj.)
3. Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3800/2019
Urban Improvement Trust, Bharatpur Through its Secretary,
Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. P. D. Poddar Welfare And Development Society, Through

Its Secretary Nitin Agarwal Son Of Shri Prahlad Prasad

Gupta Resident Of House No. 83, Mahal Khass Road, Kila

Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Soni Shikshan Samiti, E-33, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, A

Society Duly Registered Under The Provisions Of The

Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1956, Through Its

President Shri Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ram Prakash

Verma, Aged About 47 Years.

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (2 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

3. Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma (SBCW
P. No. 25637/2018), Mr. L.L. Gupta
(SBCW P.No. 3800/2019)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini, Mr. L.L. Gupta
(SBCW P. No.25637/2018), Mr. Rachit
Sharma (SBCW P. No. 3800/2019)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Judgment

Date of Reserve :: July 25, 2023
Date of Pronouncement :: November 22, 2023

1. Both the writ petitions; one by Soni Shikshan Samiti

(SBCW P. No. 25637/2018) and another by the Urban

Improvement Trust, Bharatpur (SBCW P. No. 3800/2019), have

been preferred against the common order dated 05.11.2018

passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur in Revision

Petition No. 3/18 filed under Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Urban

Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for

short 'the Rules of 1974').

2. The petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 was

filed by the respondent- P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development

Society (for short 'the respondent- Society') against Resolution

No.9 dated 08.12.2017 of the Urban Improvement Trust,

Bharatpur (for short 'the UIT, Bharatpur') for taking decision in

regard to allotment of the land in question to the petitioner- Soni

Shikshan Samiti (for short 'the petitioner- Samiti').

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (3 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

3. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

(i) For allotment and disposal of land under the Rules of

1974, the Government of Rajasthan framed a Land Allotment

Policy-2015.

(ii) The UIT, Bharatpur, issued an advertisement on

16.12.2016 inviting applications/ suggestions and objections in

regard to the land in question situated in Sector-3, earmarked for

the School.

(iii) The respondent- Society submitted an application for

allotment of the land in question.

(iv) In the meeting of the UIT, Bharatpur, held on

25.01.2017, the application submitted by the the respondent-

Society was considered and it was decided to seek informations.

(v) On 02.03.2017 the relevant informations were sought

and after considering the applications and the relevant

informations, the UIT Bharatpur vide Resolution No.11-B dated

29.06.2017 (05.07.2017) resolved to make allotment of land

measuring 2064 sq. meter to the respondent- Society.

(vi) After decision of allotment of the land in question to the

respondent- Society, the UIT, Bharatpur, issued a letter dated

09.08.2017 to the respondent- Society for depositing Rs.

1,41,86,228/- within 30 days with the stipulation that the

conditions of Allotment Policy of 2015 will be applicable.

(vii) The the respondent- Society made an application on

06.09.2017 to the UIT, Bharatpur for extension of time for

depositing the amount under Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-

2015.

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (4 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

(viii) On 15.10.2017 the respondent- Society made a

representation to the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, under the

provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015 for making

allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price.

(ix) The application submitted by the respondent- Society

for allotment of land in question on 50% of reserved price was

forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur to the State Government on

02.11.2017.

(x) On 27.11.2017 the petitioner - Samiti submitted an

application to the UIT, Bharatpur, for making allotment of land

earmarked by the UIT, Bharatpur for the School in Sector-3.

(xi) On the application of the petitioner- Samiti dated

27.11.2017, the UIT, Bharatpur in its meeting held on 08.12.2017

vide Resolution at Point No. 3 took a decision for allotment of

2064 sq. meter land to the petitioner- Samiti at reserved price +

15%.

(xii) In furtherance of the Resolution for allotment of the

land to the petitioner- Samiti, the UIT, Bharatpur, on 15.12.2017

issued a demand letter demanding Rs. 1,41,86,216/- to be

deposited within 30 days.

(xiii) In view of the demand notice the petitioner- Samiti

deposited Rs.11,00,000/- vide Demand Draft No.678633 dated

15.12.2017. Thereafter, admittedly the petitioner-Samiti deposited

Rs.30 lakh more with the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur and in this

manner the petitioner- Samiti deposited Rs.41 lakh with the

respondent- UIT, Bharatpur.

(xiv) When the application of the respondent- Society for

allotment of the land in question on 50% of the reserved price was

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (5 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

under consideration with the Government, the UIT, Bharatpur, vide

letter dated 20.12.2017 requested the State Government that no

further proceedings are desirable on the UIT's earlier letter dated

02.11.2017 because the land in question has been allotted to the

petitioner - Samiti vide Resolution dated 08.12.2017 and Demand

Letter dated 15.12.2017. The State Government vide letters dated

25.01.2018, 22.02.2018 and 05.03.2018 stated that when the

matter for allotment of land in question on 50% of the reserved

price in favour of the respondent- Society is pending before the

State Government then the UIT, Bharatpur at its own level is not

justified in making allotment of the said land in question to the

other Society and called for explanations.

(xv) The UIT, Bharatpur, vide letters dated 12.03.2018 and

10.04.2018 submitted its explanations.

(xvi) Being aggrieved by the Resolution dated 08.12.2017 for

allotment of the land in question in favour of the petitioner-

Samiti, the respondent- Society approached the Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, by filing an application on 03.02.2018

under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 assailing the decision of the

allotment of land in question in favour of the petitioner- Samiti.

(xvii) The Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide order

dated 11.01.2018 suspended the Resolution No.9 dated

08.12.2017 which was under challenged in the application filed by

the respondent- Society.

(xviii) Since the application under Rule 30 of the Rules of

1974 was filed by the respondent- Society without impleading the

petitioner- Samiti as a party, the petitioner- Samiti moved an

application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading it as a party

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (6 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

and the said application was allowed by the Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide order dated 03.10.2018. The reply

to the said application was filed by the respondent -UIT,

Bharatpur.

(xix) The Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, vide its order

dated 05.11.2018 allowed the application of the respondent-

Society and set aside the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 and

further directed the respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, to allow the

respondent- Society to deposit the amount at a reserved price +

15% within thirty days and to accept the amount in view of Clause

5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 and to issue the Patta of the land

in question in favour of the respondent- Society and to refund the

amount deposited by the petitioner- Samiti.

4. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Rachit

Sharma, counsel appearing for the petitioner in (SBCW P. No.

25637/2018) submitted that the order impugned dated

05.11.2018 passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner,

Bharatpur is perse illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts on

record as well as the law. He further submitted that the land

measuring 8064 sq. meter in Sector-3 was earmarked for the

School purposes, whereas the respondent-Society was claiming

allotment of the land in question for the establishment of the

College. Therefore, any kind of allotment for the College is ab

initio void.

Sr. Counsel further submitted that the land in question

was allotted to the petitioner- Samiti on an application submitted

by it in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the UIT,

Bharatpur and further on Resolution No.9 of the UIT, Bharatpur in

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (7 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

its meeting held on 08.12.2017 on 15% above the reserved price

for the School. He submitted that the allotment in favour of the

petitioner-Samiti was in accordance with law and in pursuance to

the allotment letter dated 15.12.2017, the petitioner-Samiti had

already deposited an amount of Rs.41 lakh and the remaining

amount could not be deposited because of the interim order

passed by the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, though

the petitioner-Samiti was ready to deposit the remaining amount

of Rs.1 Crore. He further submitted that in view of non-fulfillment

of the conditions of allotment mentioned in the allotment letter

dated 09.08.2017 in favour of the respondent- Society, the said

allotment in its favour stood cancelled and therefore, it cannot be

said that on the date of allotment of the land in question in favour

of the petitioner-Samiti the land was not available and free for

allotment. He further submitted that the respondent-Society in

furtherance of the allotment of the land in its favour did not

deposit even a single penny with the UIT, Bharatpur. Therefore,

the respondent- Society cannot claim any right of the land in

question. He also submitted that against the allotment of the land

in favour of the petitioner- Samiti, the respondent- Society filed a

suit before the Civil Court and when the respondent- Society did

not get any interim order in its favour from the Civil court and the

petitioner- Samiti was impleaded as a party respondent on its

application, the respondent- Society got the suit dismissed as

withdrawn.

Sr. Counsel also submitted that the land was allotted to

the respondent- Society on 15% above the reserved price.

However, the respondent- Society in-stead of depositing the

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (8 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

amount within the given time of thirty days, moved an application

before the UIT, Bharatpur for making allotment of the land in

question on 50% of the reserved price and the UIT, Bharatpur vide

its letter dated 02.11.2017 forwarded the representation of the

petitioner-Samiti to the State Government. Since the respondent-

Society after allotment of the land in its favour did not deposit a

single penny, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the

respondent-Society stood cancelled and further the State

Government has also not accepted the representation of the

petitioner-Samiti for allotment of the land on 50% of reserved

price. In such circumstances the respondent-Society cannot have

any claim over the land in question.

Sr. Counsel further submitted that the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, on a petition filed under Rule

30 of the Rules of 1974 illegally and arbitrarily allowed the petition

and observed that the UIT has made re-allotment in favour of the

petitioner-Samiti of the land which was already allotted to the

respondent-Society, whereas the allotment made in favour of the

respondent- Society was already stood cancelled.

Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Samiti further

submitted that the observations of the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur that the person who submitted the

application for allotment on behalf of the petitioner-Samiti was not

legally valid President of the petitioner- Samiti.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent UIT, Bharatpur,

submitted that after the demand notice dated 09.08.2017 for

depositing an amount in lieu of the allotment of the land, the

respondent- Society vide letter dated 06.09.2017 sought

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (9 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

extension of time of thirty days for depositing the amount.

However, the respondent-Society did not deposit a single penny

within one year. In absence of deposit of amount no allotment

letter can be issued. Therefore, the respondent-Society did not

avail the opportunity of allotment and in the above circumstances

the UIT passed a Resolution dated 08.12.2017 to allot the land to

the petitioner-Samiti. He further submitted that as per the lay out

plan, the land in question is reserved for establishing a School

whereas the respondent-Society has demanded the land for

establishing a College. As per the Allotment Policy-2015 the land

required for the College is 4,000-10,000 sq. meter at the

Divisional Headquarter and a College cannot be established on the

land measuring 2064 sq. meter and also the land in question was

not reserved for the College. He further submitted that the

request of the respondent- Society for allotment of the land in

question on 50% of the reserve price has also been rejected by

the State Government on 05.03.2018.

Counsel appearing for the UIT, Bharatpur also

submitted that after allotment of the land in question to the

respondent-Society and issuing a demand notice dated

09.08.2017 for depositing the amount within thirty days, the

respondent- Society did not deposit even a single penny in one

year. In such circumstances, the respondent-Society cannot claim

any right over the land in question and the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, has erred in passing the impugned order

dated 05.11.2018 in issuing directions to receive the amount from

the respondent-Society and to issue a Patta in its favour and

(Downloaded on 22/11/2023 at 08:47:35 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (10 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

further setting aside the allotment made in favour of the

petitioner- Samiti.

6. Mr. Saransh Saini, counsel appearing for the respondent

Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) submitted

that the respondent- Society made an application for allotment of

the land for the College-School on a concessional rate. He

submitted that the request for allotment of the land of the

respondent- Society was considered by the UIT in its meeting held

on 29.06.2016 and the UIT recommended to allot 2064 sq. meter

land on 15% above the reserved price and in view of the

Resolutions the allotment of the land measuring 2064 sq. meter

was made in favour of the respondent-Society vide letter dated

09.08.2017. He further submitted that Clause 5.7 of the Allotment

Policy-2015 provides that the allottee-institution is to be informed

to deposit the amount within thirty days and in case it fails to

deposit that amount within the given thirty days, the concerned

UIT can allow thirty days additional time and further after sixty

days the amount could be deposited with 12% interest. If the

allottee-institution does not deposit the amount within a period of

one year, the allotment shall stand cancelled automatically. He

further submitted that in view of Clause 5.7 of the Allotment

Policy-2015 the allotment made in favour of the respondent-

Society subsists till 08.08.2018. Therefore, any re-allotment of the

land which was already allotted to the respondent-Society, if

further made to any other Society, is illegal and deserves to be

set-aside. Thus, the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur

has rightly set aside the allotment made to Soni Shikshan Samiti

observing that the land allotted to the petitioner-Samiti was

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (11 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

already allotted to the respondent-Society. He further submitted

that though the land was allotted to the respondent- Society on

15% above the reserved price, however, the request of the

respondent- Society for allotment of the said land on 50% of the

reserved price was pending for consideration before the State

Government but in the meantime the UIT, Bharatpur without

providing an opportunity of hearing and issuing any formal order

for cancellation of the allotment made of the land in question in

favour of the petitioner-Samiti, is clear violation of the principles

of natural justice. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by

the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur in setting aside

the re-allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner-Samiti. He

also submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner-

Samiti for allotment of land was by one Mr. Deepak Kumar as a

President of the Society, whereas Mr. Deepak Kumar was not the

President of the Society. He also submitted that as per the

instructions issued by the College Education Department, the land

required for establishment of the College in the Session 2006-

2007 is only 2000 sq. meter.

7. In SBCW P. No.3800/2019, the counsel appearing for

the petitioner- UIT, Bharatpur, submitted that the land was

initially allotted to the respondent- Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare &

Development Society) and a demand notice dated 09.08.2017 was

issued to deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,86,228/- within a period

of thirty days but the respondent- Society did not deposit even a

single penny till date. He further submitted that since the

respondent- Society did not deposit any amount for the allotment

of the land made in its favour, the allotment stood cancelled

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (12 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

automatically. He further submitted that the land further allotted

to Soni Shikshan Samiti after the allotment of the same in favour

of the respondent-Society, stood cancelled. Merely pendency of

application for consideration of the allotment on 50% of the

reserved price does not create any right in favour of the

respondent- Society for taking possession. He also submitted that

the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, has erred in

holding that the land which was allotted to Soni Shikshan Samiti

on 08.12.2017 was not available for allotment because it was

already allotted to the respondent- Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare &

Development Society). He further submitted that the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, has also allowed the relief

which was also not prayed for in the petition filed under Rule 30 of

the Rules of 1974 before it. The direction issued by the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, for accepting the amount

from P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society and to issue

Patta in its favour, is without direction.

8. In regard to the petition filed by the UIT, Bharatpur,

counsel appearing for the respondent- Society submitted that the

arguments which have been submitted by them in SBCW P. No.

25637/2018, may be treated as part of the arguments in this

petition also.

9. On consideration of the submissions made by the

counsels appearing for both the parties and the material available

on the record, the first basic issue which requires to be

adjudicated is that "Whether on the date of allotment of land in

favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti on 08.12.2017, the land in

question was available for allotment or it stands already allotted

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (13 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

on that date in favour of the respondent P.D. Poddar Welfare &

Development Society?"

10. As per the facts on record, the respondent- Society

made an application for allotment of the land for establishment of

the College on 07.11.2016 and on consideration of its application,

the UIT, Bharatpur, in its meeting held on 29.06.2017 calling

information from the applicant/ respondent- Society asked that for

what purpose they are seeking allotment of the land i.e. Primary/

Upper Primary School/ Secondary /Hr. Secondary School or the

College and DPR submitted, took a decision of making

recommendation for allotment of 2064 sq. meter land at 15%

above the reserved price (5000+15%).

In view of the decision of the UIT, Bharatpur, in its

meeting dated 29.06.2017, the UIT issued a letter of allotment

dated 09.08.2017 demanding Rs.1,41,86,228/- to be deposited

within thirty days with the stipulation that the conditions of

Allotment Policy-2015 will be applicable. On 06.09.2017 the

respondent- Society made an application to the UIT, Bharatpur, for

extension of time for depositing the amount and further on

15.10.2017 the respondent-Society made an application to the

UIT, Bharatpur, for making allotment of the land in question on

50% of the reserved price and the said representation was

forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur to the State Government for

consideration on 02.11.2017. The matter for consideration of the

allotment of the land in favour of the respondent- Society on 50%

reserved price remained pending before the State Government

which was finally rejected on 05.02.2018 because the UIT,

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (14 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

Bharatpur, wrote to the State Government for withdrawal of the

letter dated 02.11.2017.

11. The State Government so as to make allotment of the

land to the social, public, charitable and religious institutions

under the Rules of 1974, framed a Land Allotment Policy-2015.

Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 says that the amount for

allotment of the land under the said Policy and the Rules, shall

have to be deposited by the allottee institution within a period of

thirty days and in case it fails to deposit that amount within given

thirty days, the concerned UIT can allow additional thirty days

time and further after sixty days the amount could be deposited

by the concerned institution with 12% interest. Clause 5.7 of the

Allotment Policy-2015 is quoted as under:-

Þ5-7 laLFkkvksa ds iwoZ esa vkoafVr Hkwfe;ksa ,oa vc vkoafVr dh tkus okyh Hkwfe;ksa ds lac/a k esa uxjh; fudk;ksa }kjk lacfa /kr laLFkk dks 30 fnol esa jkf"k tek djkus gsrq lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA 30 fnol esas jkf"k tek ugha gksus ij uxjh; fudk; jkf"k tek djkus gsrq 30 fnol dk vfrfjDr le; ns ldsxhA 60 fnol dh vof/k ds i"pkr~ vxys 10 eghuks esa jkf"k tek djkus ij 12 izfr"kr C;kt fy;k tk;sxk rFkk vkosnd laLFkk }kjk dqy ,d o'kZ dh vo/kh esa jkf"k tek u djkus ij vkoaVu Lor% fujLr gks tk;sxkA ,d o'kZ dh vof/k ds i"pkr~ jkf"k tek djkus ckcr jkT; ljdkj }kjk xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsxkAÞ

Further, Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-2015

provides that in case the UIT, Bharatpur, feels that the land could

be allotted to the institution below the reserved price / DLC rate,

the matter could be referred to the State Government for its

decision who is the competent authority for the same. Clause 5.3

of the Allotment Policy-2015 is quoted as under:-

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (15 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

Þ5-3 lacfa /kr U;kl@ izkf/kdj.k@vkolu e.My@LFkkuh; fudk; izdj.k esa fopkj djus ds i"pkr~ vkjf{kr nj@ Mh-,y-lh- nj ls de nj ij vkoaVu djuk ;qfDrlaxr ekurh gS rks ml fLFkfr eas jkT; Lrj ij fu.kZ; ds fy, ifjf"k'V&1 ij layXu pSd fyLV esa lwpuk ,oa nLrkostks ds LkkFk foHkkx dks izdj.k vxzfs 'kr fd;k tkosxkA foHkkx ds Lrj ij vkjf{kr nj@ Mh-,y-lh- nj dh 50 izfr"kr rd nj ij Hkwfe vkoafVr dh tk ldsxhA^^

12. On an application submitted by the respondent-

Society under the provisions of Clause 5.3 of the Allotment Policy-

2015 for allotment of the land in question at 50% of the reserved

price, the UIT, Bharatpur, recommended its case for consideration

to the State Government on 02.11.2017 which remained pending

before the State Government uptil 08.02.2018. Clause 5.7 of the

Allotment Policy-2015 nowhere says that in case the allottee

institution fails to deposit the amount within thirty days or in

additional thirty days (total sixty days), the allotment made in

favour of the Institution shall automatically stand cancelled,

whereas Clause 5.7 of the Allotment Policy-2015 says that the

allottee institution can deposit the amount within thirty days from

the date of allotment which can be extended by additional thirty

days by the UIT and after sixty days the institution can deposit the

amount with 12% interest within next ten months. Clause 5.7

clearly speaks that if the applicant/ allottee institution fails to

deposit the amount within a period of one year, the allotment shall

stand cancelled automatically. However, it has also been provided

that even after expiry of period of one year the State Government

on consideration of the case on its merits can take a decision for

depositing of the amount after that one year also.

13. In the present case, no order for cancellation of

allotment of land made in favour of respondent Society was ever

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (16 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

issued by the UIT, Bharatpur before making allotment of land to

Soni Shikshan Samiti. The allotment made in favour of respondent

-Society cannot be treated automatically cancelled before

completion of period of one year from the date of allotment i.e.

09.08.2017.

14. Taking into consideration the provisions contained in

the Allotment Policy-2015 and the facts of the case, this Court

finds that on the date of allotment of land in favour of Soni

Shikshan Samiti, the land was not free for allotment and thus, no

error has been committed by the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, in holding that the land was not

available for allotment on 08.12.2017. Therefore, no allotment

could have been made in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti.

15. The second issue raised before the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, in the petition filed by the respondent -

Society was that the application made by Soni Shikshan Samiti for

allotment of land was not through a proper person because the

application was submitted by Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni, as the

President of the Society, whereas on the date of application Mr.

Deepak Kumar Soni, was not the President of the Society.

16. The petitioner- Soni Shikshan Samiti submitted before

the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, that as per the

provisions of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, the tenure

of the President and its Executive Committee, is five years and six

months. It was also submitted that the application and the

documents for allotment of the land were submitted in accordance

with the provisions of the Allotment Policy-2015. The Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, in its order dated 05.11.2018

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (17 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

has observed that the application submitted by the petitioner-

Soni Shikshan Samiti for allotment of the land through Mr. Deepak

Kumar Soni was not by a competent person observing that Mr.

Deepak Kumar Soni as he was not the President of the Society on

08.11.2017.

17. On perusal of the findings in this regard given by the

Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, this Court finds that

the said observation and finding is not a reasoned and speaking

one because no reasons have been assigned for saying that Mr.

Deepak Kumar Soni was not the President of the Society on the

date of application for allotment, whereas the petitioner- Samiti

has specifically stated that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was the

President of the Society. When there was a dispute that Mr.

Deepak Kumar Soni was the President of the Society or not on the

date of submitting the application for allotment, it was obligatory

upon the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, to give

reasons for holding that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni was not the

President of the Society. Hence, the finding given by the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur that Mr. Deepak Kumar Soni

was not the President of the Society, is without any reasons and

therefore, the same is not sustainable.

18. The third issue which emerges for consideration before

this Court on the basis of arguments from both the sides is that

"Whether the Court of Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, while

considering the application under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974

filed in respect of decision of allotment dated 08.12.2017 in favour

of Soni Shikshan Samiti was in incompetency of the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur apart from setting aside the

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (18 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

allotment dated 08.12.2017, to issue directions to the

respondent- UIT, Bharatpur, for accepting the amount from the

respondent- Society in view of the allotment made in its favour

and to issue patta of the land in question.

19. The respondent- Society i.e. P.D. Poddar Welfare &

Development Society filed an application before the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, under Rule 30 of the Rules of

1974 against the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 for allotment

of the land in question in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti. Rule 30

of the Rules of 1974 provides for examination of proceedings of

transfer of land by way of allotment by the UIT. Rule 30 of the

Rules of 1974 is quoted a under:-

"30. Proceedings of Transfer can be stayed pending Examination.- (1) The Divisional Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness legality or propriety of any transfer of land made under the provisions of these rules by auction or allotment by any Trust call for the relevant record and may while doing so direct that pending the examination of the matter, such transfer of land shall be withheld.

(2) If, after examining the record and after affording a reasonable opportunity of explanation to the parties concerned, the Divisional Commissioner is satisfied that the transfer of land by the Trust by auction or allotment is not in accordance with or is in contravention of these rules, may cancel or rescind wholly or in part any action or proceeding taken or contract entered into by the Trust regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit."

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (19 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

20. Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 provides that the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, after examining the record

and after affording a reasonable opportunity of explanation to the

parties concerned, if satisfied that the transfer of land by the Trust

by auction or allotment is not in accordance with or is in

contravention of these rules, may cancel or rescind wholly or in

part any action or proceeding taken or contract entered into by

the Trust regarding such transfer of land or may revise or modify

the order or give any other direction as it may deem fit.

21. From the bare perusal of the wordings of Rule 30 of the

Rules of 1974, it can be gathered that the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, can make examination of the

proceedings of allotment in regard to which the petition has been

filed and not beyond that.

22. In the present case, the respondent- Society has filed

petition under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974 in the Court of

Divisional Commissioner, Bharatpur, against the Resolution No.9

dated 08.12.2017 of the UIT, Bharatpur, where a decision for

making allotment of land in favour of Soni Shikshan Samiti was

taken.

23. Taking into consideration the jurisdiction provided

under Rule 30 of the Rules of 1974, the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, could have only passed the order in

regard to the Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017. There was no

any pleading or facts or prayer in regard to the allotment made in

favour of the respondent Society on 09.08.2017. Hence, this Court

is of the view that the order of the Court of Divisional

Commissioner, Bharatpur, apart from setting aside the allotment

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (20 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

dated 08.12.2017, the other directions issued, are without

jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

24. The next issue for consideration of this Court is that

"Whether the allotment made in favour of the respondent -

Society on 09.08.2017 in view of default in making payment of the

amount, stands cancelled or the said allotment still survives?"

25. The allotment was made in favour of the respondent-

Society on 09.08.2017 in view of the Resolution of the UIT dated

29.06.2017. As per the demand notice dated 09.08.2017, the

amount of Rs.1,41,86,228/- was to be deposited within thirty

days. The respondent- Society made an application on 06.09.2017

for extension of period for depositing the amount and on

15.10.2017 the respondent-Society made a representation to the

UIT, Bharatpur, for allotment of land on 50% reserved price which

was forwarded by the UIT, Bharatpur, to the State Government on

02.11.2017 which was finally rejected. The provisions of Allotment

Policy-2015 provides for a total period of one year for depositing

the amount to the allottee institution. The respondent- Society did

not deposit even a single penny neither in 30 days nor in

additional 30 days i.e. total in 60 days.

26. The UIT, Bharatpur, issued an advertisement for inviting

applications for allotment of land in question along-with other

lands on 16.12.2016. However, prior to that, an application was

earlier submitted on 07.11.2017 by the respondent- Society i.e.

P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society for allotment of land

for the College-School on a concessional rate, though the

application for allotment of land was made on a concessional rate,

the allotment of the land in question to the respondent-Society

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (21 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

was made on the basis of the Resolution dated 29.06.2017 on

50% above the reserved price (5000+15% sq. yards) and a

demand notice was issued to it on 09.08.2017. The application for

allotment of land was on a concessional rate, whereas the

advertisement was issued for allotment of the land on reserved

price. There is a provision under the Rules for additionally

charging 15% price to be retained by the concerned UIT. The

respondent- Society if was not interested for allotment of the land

on reserved price, they should have very well said at the very

beginning that they want only allotment of land on a concessional

rate and not on reserved price. It is also borne out from the

material available on the record that the respondent- Society has

to move an application for allotment of the land for College-School

and the UIT sought information from the respondent-Society that

for what purpose they are seeking allotment and it was responded

that the allotment is being sought for establishing the College.

As per the Private Education College Policy 2015-16,

minimum 4000 sq. meter land is required at the Divisional

Headquarter for establishing the College. In the present case, a

land measuring 2064 sq. meter has been allotted at the Divisional

Headquarter, Bharatpur to the respondent-Society for

establishment of the College, which is below the prescribed

standard. It is also borne out from the notice for inviting

applications for allotment of land dated 16.12.2017 that the land

in question is earmarked for the School, whereas the land was

allotted to the respondent-Society for establishment of the School.

27. In view of the above facts and the provisions of law

including the Allotment Policy-2015 etc., this Court does not

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (22 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

hesitate to hold that the allotment made in favour of the

respondent-Society vide Resolution dated 29.06.2017 and letter

dated 09.08.2017, is also dehors the provisions of the Policy, and

therefore, such allotment is not sustainable and further the

respondent-Society has defaulted in depositing the amount as it

has not deposited even a single penny and thus the allotment

dated 09.08.2017 is liable to be set aside now.

28. Before parting with the order, this Court would like to

observe that the Allotment Policy-2015 needs some improvements

by including conditions to safeguard the public land and misuse of

the provisions. This Court finds that the Allotment Policy-2015

does not provide for any kind of deemed provision in regard to

cancellation of allotment in case of default of payment by allowing

the period of one year without any deposit. There is no provision

for depositing some earnest money so that after auction /

allotment, the allottee can be required to deposit the amount at

the earliest because it is a public money. It is expected from the

respondent authorities to provide some stringent provisions in the

Allotment Policy which could take care of the situations when the

allottee does not turn up for depositing the amount as in the

present case because the respondent- Society even after

allotment of land on 09.08.2017 did not deposit a single penny for

a long time.

29. In view of the discussion made above, this Court partly

allows and disposes off both the writ petitions as under:-

(i) The order of the Court of Divisional Commissioner,

Bharatpur, dated 05.11.2018 to the extent of setting aside the

Resolution No.9 dated 08.12.2017 for allotment of the land in

[2023:RJ-JP:32155] (23 of 23) [CW-25637/2018]

favour of petitioner Soni Shikshan Samiti is upheld and further

directions issued for accepting the amount from the respondent -

Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) and to issue

Patta in its favour are quashed and set aside;

(ii) The amount so deposited by the petitioner- Soni

Shikshan Samiti in furtherance of the allotment of land in its

favour, be refunded with interest @ 9% per annum;

(iii) The allotment made in favour of the respondent-

Society (P.D. Poddar Welfare & Development Society) of the land

in question in view of the Resolution dated 29.06.2017, is declared

illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Allotment Policy-2015

and the Private Education College Policy 2015-16 and the same is

declared ineffective now.

(iv) The UIT, Bharatpur, is set at liberty to make fresh