[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pansy Blues Private Limited vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:15923) on 7 April, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:15923]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2567/2026

Pansy Blues Private Limited, Through Director Mudit Jagetiya S/o
Hemraj Jagetiya Aged 29 Years, R/o Shop No. 110, Hrj Plaza,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
         Urban       And   Housing        Development,             Government    Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara Through Secretary,
         Urban Improvement Trust, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
                                  Mr. Tushar Jain for
                                  Mr. Aishwarya Anand, DGC



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

07/04/2026

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"i. That Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and the Respondents be directed to allot the property in question i.e. G-H-2, VSP Nagar Ext. in terms of Auction Notice dated 03.01.2026 by construing road over single side of property in question and accordingly, determine the construction permission.

ii. That in alternate, the Auction Awarded in favour of the Petitioner be cancelled and security deposit of Rs 24,46,720/- be refunded with interest @ 12 percent. iii. Any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be issued. iv. That the Cost may kindly be awarded in favour of the Petitioner."

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 07:03:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15923] (2 of 5) [CW-2567/2026]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondent-UIT, Bhilwara issued an auction notice dated

03.01.2026 for the auction of 135 plots, including Plot No. G-H-2

situated at 200 Ft. Road, VSP Nagar Extension, admeasuring 200

ft. × 160 ft., at various locations in Bhilwara. The terms and

conditions of the auction were appended to the said notice. It is

submitted that the petitioner, being interested, participated in the

auction and was declared the successful bidder for the aforesaid

plot. The petitioner also deposited the security amount in terms of

the auction conditions.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the grievance of the

petitioner is that upon physical inspection of Plot No. G-H-2, it was

found to be a corner plot. Consequently, if construction is raised

thereon, larger setbacks would be required to be left as compared

to non-corner plots.

4. Drawing the attention of this Court to the auction

notice/document, learned counsel submitted that the description

of the plot in question does not indicate that it is a corner plot,

whereas in respect of other plots included in the auction notice

dated 03.01.2026, wherever applicable, such fact was specifically

mentioned.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, due to

misrepresentation/mismatch in the description of the plot, the

petitioner requested the respondents either to permit construction

by applying setback rules applicable to non-corner plots or, in the

alternative, to cancel the auction in his favour and refund the

security amount of ₹24,46,720/- along with interest @ 12%. It is

contended that had the respondents disclosed that the plot in

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 07:03:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15923] (3 of 5) [CW-2567/2026]

question was a corner plot, the petitioner would not have

participated in the auction proceedings. The failure of the

respondent-UIT to provide complete, true, and correct particulars

of the property in the auction notice has led to the present

situation.

6. Learned counsel further contended that the respondent-UIT,

being a public body, is expected to act in a fair, transparent, and

reasonable manner. However, due to its actions, the petitioner has

been placed in a difficult position, and denial of the relief sought

would result in substantial financial loss to him. In support of his

submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manju Gupta & Ors. vs. Delhi

Development Authority decided on 28.02.2023.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-UIT

submitted that the petitioner, having participated in the auction

proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 03.01.2026 after going

through the terms and conditions, and having been declared the

successful bidder for Plot No. G-H-2 and deposited the security

amount, cannot now challenge the same on the ground of alleged

misrepresentation. It is further submitted that mere non-

indication of the plot being a corner plot in the auction notice

would not render the entire auction proceedings illegal.

8. Drawing the attention of this Court to various terms and

conditions of the auction notice, learned counsel submitted that

Condition No. 17 clearly provides that a bidder, prior to

participating in the auction, was at liberty to obtain documents

regarding the location, layout, drawings, etc., from the officials of

the respondent-UIT. Details relating to the plots and their

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 07:03:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15923] (4 of 5) [CW-2567/2026]

locations were also available on the official website of the

respondent-UIT. The petitioner was further at liberty to inspect

the site, for which specific officials were designated. It is

submitted that once the auction proceedings have been finalized

and the petitioner has deposited the security amount, he cannot

resile from the same.

9. Condition No. 17 of the auction notice reads as under:

"17 भख ू ण्ड / आवास के लोकेशन की जानकारी कार्यालय समय में ड्राइंन शाखा से प्राप्त की जा सकती है । बापूनगर, आजाद नगर योजना क्षैत्र के लिये कनि० अभियन्ता श्रीमति रूची अग्रवाल (9214324500), पटे लनगर एवं पटे ल नगर विस्तार के लिये श्री रोहित चौबिसा (9783800666), तिलक नगर, नेहरू विहार के लिए श्री विशाल सिंह (9166695607) एवं पंचवटी के लिए पवन जीनगर (9785586610) आरसी व्यास के लिए खुर्र म अनवर (9251535124), विजय सिंह पथिक नगर के लिये श्री शक्तिसिंह राणावत (9982909988) से सम्पर्क करें । ऑनलाईन प्रक्रिया की जानीकारी हे तु प्रोग्रामर कुलदिप जैन मो नं. (9413983009) से सम्पर्क करें । अन्य किसी जानकारी के लिये सहायक लेखाधिकारी प्रथम एवं नीलामी प्रभारी श्री संजय लोहिया (9252231980) से सम्पर्क करें या ई-मेल आईडी [email protected] पर जानकारी प्राप्त करे ।"

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of Condition No. 17 of the auction notice/tender document

(reproduced above), this Court finds that it was clearly stipulated

that, prior to participating in the bidding process, a bidder was at

liberty to obtain the layout/drawing of the concerned plot from the

respondent-UIT or to physically visit the site along with the

officials of the UIT. The object of the said condition was to ensure

that an intending bidder verifies the description and location of the

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 07:03:53 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15923] (5 of 5) [CW-2567/2026]

plot before participating in the auction and seeks clarification, if

any doubt exists, at that stage itself.