Shiv Narayan Kanchal vs State And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 8880 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:35882]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1448/2014

Dipika Tillani W/o Dharmendra Tillani, aged 38 years, R/o 154-A, New Market, Rawatbhata (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 551/2014 Shyam Prakash Chaturvedi S/o Late J.P. Chaturvedi, aged 54 years, R/o L-7, Keshav Marg, Brahmpuri Khurra, Jaipur, (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 552/2014 Ramesh Chandra Gurjar S/o Nanu Ram, aged 40 years, R/o 1 C 57, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1362/2014

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (2 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

Roshan Lal Jain S/o Badu Lal Jain, aged 32 years, R/o Village Dhangadmog Kalla, Rawatbhata (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1364/2014 Shiv Narayan Kanchal S/o Late Shri Chhotmal, aged 55 years, R/ o 468, Aggarwal House, Main Road, Chavni, Kota (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1435/2014 Jodhraj Gurjar S/o Bjojraj Gurjar, aged 25 years, R/o House No.155, New Market, Rawatbhata (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1959/2014 Arihant Jain S/o Ramesh Kumar, aged 24 years, R/o Arihant Tractor Parts and Barier, Rawatbhata (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (3 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Municipality of Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh through its Executive Officer.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. Vishan Das
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Devam Jain for
                                  Mr. Rajesh Parihar, AGC
                                  Mr. Abhishek Garg
                                  Mr. KP Raj Singh Deora



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                   Judgment

Judgment Reserved on                      <>                       18.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement                     <>                       31.10.2023

1. The matters have been listed in the category of orders. With

the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are

heard finally, today itself.

2. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in

these writ petitions, therefore, these writ petitions are decided by

this common order by taking the writ petition No.1448/2014 as

main file.

3. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India with the following prayer:-

i. Order dated 13.12.2013 (Annexure-1) may kindly be decided illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii. The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to allot and make patta of plot auctioned to the petitioner.

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (4 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

iii. Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.

iv. Costs may kindly be also rewarded."

4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 issued

an advertisement on 23.08.2013 for the purpose of auction of

stray plots under the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban

Land) Rules, 1974(hereinafter the Rules of 1974). In the said

advertisement various plots of different sizes were advertised

having the fixed reserved price and each participants was directed

to deposit Rs.20,000/- as a security amount. The petitioners

participated in the said auction process and placed a bid for Plot

No.S-1 having size of 2500 square feet with a reserve price of

Rs.6,46,250/-. The petitioners being the highest bidder was

allotted a plot for an amount of Rs.8,29,925/- and the petitioners

deposited 25 per cent value of the said plot on 18.09.2013. Vide

demand letter dated 04.10.2013 for the said plot the petitioners

were directed to pay the remaining 75 per cent of the amount.

The respondents refused to accept the said amount on the ground

that the elections were notified. The petitioners requested the

respondent No.2 on several occasions for accepting the remaining

amount but no heed was paid to it. The Executive Officer,

Municipalities Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh passed an order

dated 13.12.2013 while cancelling the plot auction in favour of the

petitioners. Petitioners being aggrieved of the same, have filed the

present writ petition.

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (5 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the

Rules of 1974, the power to review the order of the allotment of

public auction of the patta in dispute does not vest with the

respondents and thus, the said order deserves to be quashed and

set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted

that the petitioners were not accorded an opportunity of hearing

as no notice was served or explanation was called upon from the

petitioners and thus, the respondents have failed to adhere to the

principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also submitted that

once the petitioners were declared as highest bidder and the plot

in question was auctioned in favour of the petitioners, the

respondents could not have cancelled the said auction in such an

arbitrary manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submitted that the petitioners had duly deposited the 25 percent

value of the plot on 18.09.2013 and was willing to deposit the

remaining 75 percent value of the plot in pursuance of the

demand letter dated 04.10.2023 but the respondents did not

accept the remaining 75 percent value of the plot which was to be

paid by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

undoubtedly the petitioners were declared as the highest bidder

and the plot was auctioned in favour of the petitioners however,

later on it was found that the said proceedings were conducted

dehors the provisions of law and thus, the respondents had not

choice but to cancel the auction proceedings. Learned counsel for

the respondents also submitted that in some plots bid was

received as high as Rs. 21,00,000/- and for some other plots the

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (6 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

bid was received for much less amount indicating irregularities in

the auction proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents also

submitted that the whole residential plots through public auction is

required to be conducted strictly in accordance with Rule 14 of the

Rules of 1974 as the sanction of the Chairman is mandatory

however, in the present case, the sanction of the Chairman has

not been taken.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. A specific query was made to the learned counsel for the

respondents to demonstrate before this Court that compliance of

the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1974 was not

made to which the learned counsel for the respondents placed

before this Court the copies of the note sheets dated 12.12.2013.

Upon perusal of the note-sheet for Plot in question it is reflected

that the Chairman, Municipalities Board has given various reasons

for cancellation of the plots that has been auctioned in the auction

proceedings conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated

23.08.2013 (Annexure-2) and the same are reproduced as

under:-

"1. राजस्थान नगर पालिका नगरीय भू मि निष्पादन नियम 1974 के नियम 24 के अन्तर्गत बिखरे Hkw खण्डों को निष्पादन किये जाने हे तु स्पष्ट प्रावधान उल्ले खित है , जिसके अनुसार पालिका के अधिशाषी अधिकारी को ऐसे भूखण्डों का सर्वे कराकर विहित पंजीका में सूची तैयार करनी होती है , जिसमें भूखण्ड जहां अवस्थित है , उसका उल्लेख वह भूखण्ड की स्थिति भूखण्ड की चारों सीमाएं प्रत्येक ओर की लम्बाई विवरण सहित क्षेत्रफल अं कित होना आवश्यक है , परन्तु ऐसी कोई सूची तैयार नही ं की गई, और ना ही ऐसी सूची का सं बंधित कलक्टर से पू र्वा नु मोदन प्राप्त किया गया।

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (7 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

2. राजस्थान नगर पालिका नगरीय भूमि निष्पादन नियम 1974 के नियम 15 के अन्तर्गत सार्वजनिक निलामी द्वारा भूखण्ड विक्रय किये जाने का प्रावधान और ऐसे भूखण्डों के विक्रय के लिए नियम 15 के परिशिष्ट (ए) में प्रक्रियां निर्धारित की गई है , जिसके अनुसार नियम (जी) के तहत बोली नगर पालिका के अध्यक्ष की स्वीकृति के अध्यधीन होगी, जिसमें किसी भी बोली को उसका कोई कारण बताये बिना स्वीकार या अस्वीकार करने के अधिकार सुरक्षित है , (निलामी कार्यवाही अध्यक्ष, अधिशाषी अधिकारी व जिलाधीश के प्रतिनिधी यदि उपस्थित हो, के संयुक्त हस्ताक्षरों से प्रमाणित की जावेगी) परन्तु उपरोक्त निलामी की कार्यवाही में नगर पालिका अध्यक्ष के कही ं भी हस्ताक्षर नही ं करवाये गये , और ना ही बोली स्वीकृत करने या ना करने के सं बंध में सहमति/असहमति प्राप्त नही ं की गई, अधिशाषी अधिकारी व जिला कलक्टर के प्रतिनिधी द्वारा ही मौके पर अध्यक्ष की अनुपस्थिति एवं अस्वीकृति की स्थिति में भूखण्ड निलामी की कार्यवाही की जाकर बोलीयां अपनी मनमर्जी से स्वीकृत करते हुए, अधिकतम बोलीदाताओं से पालिका अध्यक्ष के ध्यान में लाये बिना एवं स्वीकृति प्राप्त किये बिना ही अधिकां श बोलीदाताओं से 1/4 राशि एवं 3/4 राशि पालिका कोष में जमा करवा ली गई हैं ।

3. उपरोक्त निलामी की पत्रावलीयों में यह भी पाया गया है , कि भूखण्ड वाईज निलामी की पृथक-पृथक पत्रावलीयों में प्रारम्भ से लेकर अन्तिम निष्पादन तक की कोई कार्यवाही ऑर्डर शीट पर अं कित नही ं की गई हैं । विधिवत् रूप से कार्यवाही अग्रेसित नही ं करते हुए सक्षम स्तर से पत्रावली पर स्वीकृति प्राप्त किये बिना ही उपरोक्तानुसार कार्यवाहियों को अंजाम दिया गया, जो निती नियम के विरुद्ध ikbZ जाती है ।

4. किसी भी भूखण्ड का ले -आऊट प्लान पालिका तकनिकी अधिकारी से तैयार नही ं करवाया जाना व पालिका अधिशाषी अधिकारी एवं अध्यक्ष से स्वीकृत नही करवाया जाना पाया गया।

5. मौके की वास्तविक स्थिति जारी निलामी सूचना में प्रदर्शित नही ं की गई, और वर्तमान प्रदक्षित आरक्षित दर की x.kuk भी वास्तविक स्थिति के अनुरूप नही ं की

गई, तथा भूख.M का उपयोग का निर्धारण भी पत्रावली पर किया जाना नही ं पाया

गया, जबकि नियम 24 के अन्तर्गत हो भू --उपयोग में निर्धारण किये जाने का

izko/kku है।

6. उपरोक्त निलामी कार्यवाहियों में यह भी पाया गया, कि जो भूखण्ड मैन रोड पर व्यवसायिक उपयोग के थे , उन्हें आवासीय में प्रदर्शित कर मौके की स्थिति को अस्पष्ट रूप से प्रदर्शित करते हुए fuykeh की कार्यवाही तत्कालीन अधिशाषी अधिकारी द्वारा सम्पादित की गई है जिसमें पालिका को अर्थिक नुकसान पहुं चाकर प्रभावशाली बोलीदाताओं को लाभ पहुं चाने की दृष्टि पु र्ण तया पृकट होती हैं ।

7. उपरोक्त पत्रावलीयों में यह भी पाया गया, कि जिन भूखण्ड़ों की बोली अधिक

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (8 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

आनी चाहिए थी, उनकी बोलीयां कम राशियों पर अनधिकृत रूप से स्वीकृत की गई, क्योंकि इसमें ऐसी बोलीयां भी पाई गई, जिनकी अधिकतम बोली 21,00,000/- रू. लगी हैं , फिर इसे दे खते हुए, दु सरे भूखण्डों की बोलीयां कम प्राप्त होना अपने आप में यह विवेचना करने पर विवश करती है कि किन परिस्थितियों में उसी स्थिति एं व लोकेशन के भूखण्डों तथा प्राईम लोकेशन के भूखण्डों की बोलीयां क्यों कम प्राप्त हुई यह विचारनीय बिन्दू होकर पृथक से जां च का विषय है ।"

9. The respondents had issued advertisement dated 23.08.2013

(Annexure-2) for sale of residential plots by way of public auction

under the Rules of 1974 and the petitioners had duly applied in

pursuance of the said advertisement. A bare perusal of Rule 14 of

the Rules of 1974 reflects that the residential plots, which are not

reserved for allotment shall be disposed of through the public

auction in the manner prescribed in Annexure-A. Upon perusal of

the format Annexure (A) the procedure which has to be adopted

for sale of plots by auction under Rule 14 has been laid down in

which under Clause (g) it has been specifically laid down that the

bid shall be subject to the sanction of the Chairman of the

Municipality in whom are reserved the rights to accept or reject

any bid without assigning any reason thereof and the said

allotment of the land by way of auction in favour of the petitioners

has been cancelled upon finding that the due sanction has not

been taken from the Chairman, Municipal Corporation. The

relevant part of Rule 14 and Rule part of Annexure (A) Clause (g)

of the Rules of 1974 in reproduced hereunder:-

"14. Sale of Residential plots through public auction.- Residential plots not reserved for allotment shall be disposed of through public auction in the manner prescribed in Annexure A, and the Collector

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (9 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

concerned or his nominee shall be associated when the auction takes place.

Annexure (A) (Rule 14) Clause (g)

(g) The bid shall be subject to the sanction of the Chairman of the Municipality in whom are reserved the rights to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason thereof."

10. There is no iota of doubt that the respondents had issued the

advertisement for the purpose of sale of the residential plots

through public auction and when such public auction is conducted

for the purpose of sale of residential plots, then it is obligatory

upon the respondents to adhere to the provision as laid down in

Rule 14 of the Rules of 1974. The petitioners have not set up a

case that the respondents had duly taken the sanction of the

Chairman of the Municipality in whom the right to accept or reject

any bid without assigning any reason was vested. The respondents

upon finding the said auction proceedings to be dehor the

provision of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1974 have rightly cancelled

the plots auctioned in favour of the petitioners. The respondents

found that the proceedings for the auction of the sale of the plots

in question was proceeded without obtaining the signature of the

Chairman of Municipality and further no concerned/disagreement

was obtained in respect to the acceptance or rejection of the bid

from the Chairman of Municipality. The respondents also found

that the proceedings were forwarded without obtaining of the

approval on the file from the competent level and further the

current prevaling reserve right was also not calculated as per the

actual condition. It was also found by the respondents that the

[2023:RJ-JD:35882] (10 of 10) [CW-1448/2014]

plots which were earmarked for commercial use on the main road

were displayed as residential plots and the auction proceedings

were conducted by the concerned Officer in a vague manner. The

respondents also found that the plots for which higher bids ought

to have been received were unauthorizedly accepted at lower

amounts and thus, upon finding the entire process to be

conducted in irregular manner and dehor the provision of law the

respondents proceeded to cancel the allotment of the patta in

favour of the petitioners. As far as Rule 15 of the Rules of 1974 is

concerned as mentioned in the note-sheet (supra) has no bearing

in the present case as the same does not pertain to sale of

residential plots through public auction, therefore, no adjudication

on this point is called for.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions are

having no force, as the respondents have rightly cancelled the

pattas in question for the reason that the same were allotted

without following the due process as laid down under Rule 14 of

the Rules of 1974 and various irregularities were also found in the

said process adopted for allotment of the pattas in question. Thus

the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.

12. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand

dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 70-76-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)