[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jain Family Trust vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13660]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5264/2024
Jain Family Trust, Through Chief Trustee Mr. Ramesh Parekh S/o
Late Shri Hasti Mal Parekh, Aged 74 Years, R/o B-1, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Local Self,
Department, G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C-Scheme,
Near Line Phatak, Jaipur-16, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Local Self Department, G-3, Rajmahal
Residential Area, C-Scheme, Near Line Phatak, Jaipur-16,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7288/2017
Jain Family Trust Through Chief Trustee Mr. Ramesh Parekh S/o
Late Shri Hasti Mal Parekh, Aged 74 Years, Permanent Resident
Of B-1, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342003.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Department
Of Local Self Govt, G-3, Rajmahal Residencial Area, C-
Schemenear Civil Line Phatak Jaipur-16, Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Polytechnic
College, Residency Road, Jodhpur-342001.
3. Chairman, Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Polytechnic
College, Residency Road, Jodhpur-342001.
4. Chairman, Jodhpur Development Authority, Jodhpur
Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani
Mr. Hemant Kumar Ballani
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenal Singhvi for
Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
Ms. Darshita Pungalia for
Mr. Suniel Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 25/02/2026
Pronounced on: 27/03/2026
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (2 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
Facts of the case:-
1. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are
that on 18.09.1982, the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur (for
brevity, hereinafter referred to as "UIT"), presently known as the
Jodhpur Development Authority, issued a notice for auction of Plot
No. E-63, Masuria, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, admeasuring 1003.32
square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "plot in question").
The petitioner, a family trust, through its Chief Trustee, Mr.
Ramesh Parekh, participated in the auction proceedings. The bid
submitted by the petitioner, i.e., Rs. 3,51,162/-, being the highest,
was accepted by the respondents on 18.09.1982 (Anx-1). In
accordance with the auction conditions, upon being declared the
highest bidder, the petitioner deposited one-fourth of the bid
amount, i.e., Rs. 88,000/-, as security on the same day with the
respondents.
2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ petition and the reply filed
by the respondents, indicate that after a lapse of more than ten
months of the bid i.e. 18.09.1982 the petitioner on 09.08.1983
(Anx-2), submitted a cheque bearing No. 125457 issued by United
Bank of India, Jodhpur, for Rs. 2,63,162/- to the Chairman, UIT,
Jodhpur. The cheque, however, did not include the interest payable
on account of delayed payment.
3. The petitioner, without issuance of a lease deed in its favour
and after submitting the cheque of Rs. 2,63,162/- to UIT,
constructed a boundary wall and a room on the plot in question.
4. UIT, Jodhpur, vide communication dated 24.01.1985,
informed the petitioner that the cheque of Rs. 2,63,162/- could
not be encashed and directed the petitioner to issue a fresh
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (3 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
cheque of the same amount, failing which the allotment would
stand cancelled and the one-fourth amount of Rs. 88,000/-
deposited as security would be forfeited.
5. Upon receipt of the communication dated 24.01.1985,
instead of issuing a fresh cheque, the petitioner submitted several
representations requesting the respondent UIT to return the
original cheque bearing No. 125457 dated 09.08.1983 (Anx-2)
and to initiate proceedings for issuance of a lease deed in its
favour.
6. During the pendency of the aforesaid dispute, in the year
2015, the plot in question, i.e., Masuria, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
was transferred to the Jodhpur Municipal Corporation. It appears
that after such transfer, the file pertaining to the allotment of the
plot was misplaced or remained untraceable for some time.
7. Be that as it may, the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, vide notice dated
06.02.2017 (Anx-11), informed the petitioner that since it had
failed to deposit the cost of the land/bid amount within the
stipulated time as per the bid conditions, the allotment stood
automatically cancelled. Thereafter, vide notices dated
01.06.2017, 09.06.2017, and 14.06.2017, the petitioner was
directed to vacate the plot in question, failing which it would be
forcibly evicted.
8. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 7288/2017 before this Court, praying for the
following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, humbly prayed that the appropriate writ, order or
direction be issued to the respondents authorities and the present
petition may kindly be allowed and.
(I) The notice dated 06.02.2017 (Annex-1) and order dated
01.06.2017 (Annex-2) issued by the respondent Commissioner,
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (4 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
Municipal Corporation Jodhpur, may kindly be quashed and set
aside with all consequential effects.
(ii) Respondent authorities may kindly be directed not to
dispossess the petitioner from the plot situated at E-63, Masurai
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
(iii) Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to return the
cheque dated 09.08.1983 of Rs.02,63,162/- bearing no. 125457
issued by the United Bank of India, Jodhpur.
(iv) Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to reglularize
the plot situated at E-63, Masuria Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur in the
mane of petitioner.
(v) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and
proper may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.
(vi) Costs may kindly be also awarded."
9. This Court, on 14.07.2017 (Anx-14), directed the parties to
maintain status quo with respect to the property in question.
Subsequently, on 09.01.2018 (Anx-15), taking note of the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a
representation had been made to the State Government against
the alleged cancellation of allotment, this Court directed the State
Government to consider and decide the representation in
accordance with law.
10. The Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Government,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, after considering the matter,
vide communication dated 16.04.2019 (Anx-16), directed the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, to regularize the
allotment of land in favour of the petitioner by accepting the
remaining amount along with applicable interest and penalty as
per the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules,
1974.
11. However, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur,
did not take any step to regularize the allotment. Thereafter,
certain communications were exchanged between the authorities.
Subsequently, vide communication dated 24.01.2024 (Anx-21),
the Director-cum-Joint Secretary directed the Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (South), to expedite proceedings
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (5 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
for fresh auction of the plot, taking into account that the allotment
had already been cancelled.
12. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed another writ petition
being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5264/2024 seeking quashing of
the order dated 24.01.2024 (Anx-21) and a direction to regularize
the plot.
The prayer Clause of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5264/2024 is
reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the present petition for
writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ/
order or direction
(i) The order dated 24.01.2024 (Annex.21) issued by the
respondent no. 2 and the further proceeding in pursuance thereof
may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quahed
and set aside;
(ii) The respondent authority may kindly be directed to regularize
the house in question pursuant to the decision dated 16.04.2019
(Annex.16) issued by the State Govt. in pursuance of the order
dated 09.01.2018 (Annex.15) of this Hon'ble Court.
(iii) Any other appropriate relief, this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper, may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner
(iv) Cost may also be allowd in favour of the petitioner."
Arguments raised on behalf of petitioner:-
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri C.S. Kotwani and Shri
Hemant Kumar Ballani, vehemently submitted that the petitioner,
upon being declared the highest bidder in the auction proceedings
conducted by UIT, Jodhpur, promptly deposited one-fourth of the
bid amount, i.e., Rs. 88,000/-, out of the total bid of Rs.
3,51,162/- on 18.09.1982 (Anx-1). It was further submitted that
although the remaining three-fourths of the bid amount could not
be deposited within one month, i.e., by 28.10.1982, as stipulated
in the auction terms, the auction proceedings were governed by
the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement (Disposal of
Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "UIT
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (6 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
Disposal Rules, 1974"), which permitted acceptance of such
payment within one year.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the remaining amount
through cheque dated 09.08.1983 (Anx-2) with UIT, Jodhpur, and
requested issuance of the lease deed. It was contended that the
failure of UIT, Jodhpur to encash the cheque dated 09.08.1983
cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It was further submitted
that the petitioner was informed only on 24.01.1985 that the
cheque could not be encashed and that a fresh cheque should be
issued. Learned counsel emphasized that although the
communication dated 24.01.1985 stated that the original cheque
was being returned, no such cheque was enclosed. Therefore, the
petitioner was justified in requesting return of the original cheque
to avoid any possibility of its misuse before issuing a fresh cheque.
15. Learned counsel further submitted that since the auction
proceedings were governed by the UIT Disposal Rules, 1974, the
petitioner, being aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities in
issuing the lease deed, submitted representations to the State
Government, which is empowered under Rule 14 and Rule 17 to
permit regularization upon payment of the outstanding amount
along with interest and penalty. Before the State Government
could take a decision, the plot in question came under the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached the Municipal Authorities requesting
regularization of the plot in question under Rule 14 and 17 of The
Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974,
expressing readiness and willingness to deposit the requisite
amount in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (7 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
16. It was further submitted that the records indicate that after
the transfer of jurisdiction, the file relating to the allotment
remained untraceable for a considerable period, resulting in
inaction. However, abruptly, the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur,
issued the order dated 01.06.2017 (Anx-13) cancelling the
allotment and forfeiting the one-fourth amount deposited by the
petitioner.
17. Learned counsel contended that the mala fide intent and
arbitrariness of the respondents are evident from the fact that
despite the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Local Self Government,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, approving regularization of the
plot in question in favour of the petitioner vide communication
dated 16.04.2019 (Anx-16), the Municipal Authorities failed to act
upon the same. Instead, they subsequently took a decision dated
24.01.2024 (Anx-21) to re-auction the plot in question, without
any change in circumstances.
18. Attention of the Court was also drawn to the proceedings in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7316/2019, filed by the then Mayor of
the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, challenging the order dated
16.04.2019 (Anx-16). The said writ petition was dismissed on the
ground that the Mayor lacked locus standi to challenge the order.
Further, a request made to State Government for review of its
decision dated 16.04.2019 (Anx-16) was also rejected vide order
dated 01.08.2019 (Anx-19).
19. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has always
been ready and willing to deposit the entire remaining amount
along with applicable interest and penalty. Alternatively, the
petitioner is even willing to deposit the amount at prevailing DLC
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (8 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
rates, after adjusting the amount already paid. Despite this, the
petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post without any
justification, particularly when the State Government had already
taken a conscious decision to regularize the allotment. It was
contended that the subsequent decision dated 24.01.2024 (Anx-
21) effectively amounts to a review of the earlier decision dated
16.04.2019 (Anx-16) without any valid basis or change in
circumstances.
20. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the
respondents be directed to regularize the plot in question
forthwith.
Arguments raised on behalf of respondents:-
21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Meenal
Singhvi and Ms. Darshita Pungaliya, submitted that the auction
proceedings in the present case were governed by the terms and
conditions of the auction notice as well as the UIT Disposal Rules,
1974. It was admitted that the petitioner deposited one-fourth of
the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 88,000/-, but failed to deposit the
remaining three-fourths amount, i.e., Rs. 2,63,162/-, within the
time stipulated in the auction terms and the allotment letter dated
18.09.1982 (Anx-1). It was submitted that as per terms and
conditions the remaining amount was to be deposited within 30
days, i.e., by 28.10.1982, failing which it could be deposited
within a further period of 60 days along with applicable interest.
However, upon failure to deposit within this extended period, the
allotment would automatically stand cancelled.
22. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the petitioner admittedly tendered the remaining amount through
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (9 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
cheque dated 09.08.1983 (Anx-2), i.e., after approximately ten
months. It was contended that, in view of the explicit terms and
conditions of the auction, the allotment stood automatically
cancelled. It was also submitted that the cheque dated
09.08.1983 (Anx-2) did not include any amount towards interest,
nor did the petitioner seek any extension of time from the
competent authority. According to the respondents, this
sufficiently explains why the cheque was not encashed. It was
further contended that even assuming a fresh cheque had been
submitted in response to the communication dated 24.01.1985,
the allotment could not have been revived, as it had already stood
cancelled under the applicable rules.
23. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, without
any lease deed or legal title, unlawfully entered upon the plot in
question and constructed a boundary wall and a room, and also
allegedly obtained an electricity connection without any lawful
entitlement.
24. Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the fact that
despite being aware since 1985 that the cheque had not been
encashed, the petitioner did not initiate any legal proceedings for
nearly three decades and instead merely submitted
representations. The present writ petition, filed in 2017, thus
suffers from gross delay and laches. It was argued that repeated
representations do not revive a stale cause of action and cannot
justify such inordinate delay.
25. In response to the argument regarding non-compliance with
the communication dated 16.04.2019 (Anx-16), learned counsel
submitted that no valid proposal for regularization was ever made
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (10 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
in accordance with the UIT Disposal Rules, 1974 or the Rajasthan
Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974. Therefore,
the said communication does not confer any enforceable right
upon the petitioner. It was further submitted that this Court had
only directed the State Government to consider and decide the
petitioner's representation in accordance with law. The State
Government was, therefore, required to take into account the
applicable statutory provisions before approving regularization.
26. Lastly, it was submitted that the State Government, upon
reconsideration in 2024, decided to direct fresh auction of the plot
in question in order to secure better revenue for the public
exchequer. On these grounds, learned counsel urged that the writ
petitions be dismissed with exemplary costs.
Conclusion:-
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Indisputably, the application filed by the petitioner seeking
regularization of the plot in question was ultimately decided by the
respondents in view of the provisions contained in Rule 14
Annexure (A) (f) of The Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of
Urban Land) Rules, 1974 which is pari materia in nature with Rule
14 Annexure-A (f)(iii) of UIT Disposal Rules, 1974 and the same is
reproduced below for ready reference:-
"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 concerned or
his nominee shall be associated when the auction takes
place.
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (11 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
Annexure-A
(Rule 14)
(f) (i) The successful bidder shall be required to deposit
one-fourth of the amount of his bid forthwith on the
acceptance of the bid and the remaining three-fourth of
the amount of the bid shall be deposited by him within
one month of the acceptance of the bid and in case of
failure to deposit within the next thirty days interest @
15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the
date of acceptance of the bid.
(ii) After the expiry of the period of ten months from the
date of the said automatic cancellation, the board shall
have no power to regularise such auction of land in any
case.
(iii) The board, if it considers necessary in its interest,
may refer the case to the State Government for
regularisation even after the expiry of the period
mentioned in sub-clauses (1) and (II) above. The State
Government, after considering the recommendations
made by the board. may permit such regularisation on
payment by the bidder, the amount of bid plus interest
and penalty as provided in sub-clause (1) above upto the
month in which the case was referred to State
Government by the Board:"
Rule 14 Annexure-A (f) of UIT Disposal Rules, 1974:
"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.
(f)(i) The successful bidder shall be required to deposit
one-fourth of the amount of his bid forth with on the
acceptance of the bid and the remaining three forth of the
amount of the bid shall be deposited by him within one
month of the acceptance of the bid and in case of failure to
deposit within the next [60 days), interest @ 15% per
annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of
acceptance of the bid:
(ii) After the expiry of the period of one year from the
date of the said automatic cancellation, the Chairman shall
have no power to regularise such auction of land, but the
Trust will have power to extend this period by one year
more on payment by the bidder, the outstanding amount
of bid plus interest and penalty as provided in sub-clause
(i) above.]
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (12 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
(iii) If the trust in its interest refers the case to the State
Government for such regularisation or a purchaser applies
to the Government stating the facts in detail for such
regularisation, the State Government may permit such
regularisation on payment by the bidder, the outstanding
amount of bid plus interest and penalty as provided in
sub-clause (i) above."
[Emphasis supplied]
28. This Court finds that, the petitioner, being the successful
bidder in the auction held on 18.09.1982 (Anx-1), deposited Rs.
88,000/- (one-fourth of the bid amount) as required. However, the
remaining amount was neither deposited within 30 days nor within
the extended period of 60 days along with interest. As per the
terms and conditions governing the auction, failure to deposit the
amount within 60 days resulted in automatic cancellation of the
allotment. Though the Chairman, UIT, had the discretion to
regularize such allotment within one year upon payment of the full
amount along with interest and penalty, no such order was ever
passed.
29. The petitioner, on 09.08.1983 (Anx-2), deposited a cheque
of Rs. 2,63,162/- against the remaining 3/4 th amount without
applicable interest or penalty. Significantly, no request for
regularization or withdrawal of the order regarding automatic
cancellation of subject plot was made at that time.
30. In the opinion of this Court, the cheque dated 09.08.1983
was rightly not encashed, as it was submitted after an inordinate
delay and without any order of regularization by the competent
authority. Even if a fresh cheque had been submitted pursuant to
the communication dated 24.01.1985 (Anx-4), the allotment
could not have been revived by the UIT without specific order of
Chairman of the concerned UIT, as it had already stood cancelled.
Thus, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the said
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (13 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
cheque or subsequent correspondence. It is pertinent to note here
that in the writ petitions, no satisfactory explanation has been
furnished by the petitioner for not depositing balance amount as
per the terms set out in the auction notice or under the rules. In
case, petitioner was seriously interested in acquiring the plot in
question, there appears to be no reason why the balance amount
could not be deposited within stipulated period i.e. 30 days or the
extended period of 60 days with interest. The subsequent
deposition of cheque (without including interest and penalty
amount) without approval of Chairman/competent authority is of
no help to the petitioner.
31. This Court is constrained to observe that the petitioner,
without issuance of a lease deed or possession letter and despite
being fully aware of its default, unlawfully entered upon the plot
and constructed a boundary wall and a room, and even obtained
an electricity connection. Such conduct is highly condemnable and
unbecoming of a bona fide litigant.
32. In regards to the reliance placed on representations seeking
approval for regularization of plot in question to the State
Government and the order dated 16.04.2019 (Anx-16) passed by
the State Government is concerned, this Court finds that the order
approving regularization of plot in question was passed after an
inordinate delay of nearly 37 years without any exceptional
circumstances justifying regularization.
33. This Court further observes that although the petitioner
sought regularization by invoking both the provisions of the UIT
Disposal Rules, 1974 as well as the Rajasthan Municipalities
(Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, the respondents have
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13660] (14 of 14) [CW-5264/2024]
ultimately proceeded to consider regularization in terms of Rule 14
read with Annexure 'A' of The Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of
Urban Land) Rules, 1974. The said Rules provide a self-contained
mechanism for regularization of Urban land within Municipal Limit.
The order appears to have been passed overlooking both the delay
and the interest of the public authority so also the fact that the
price of plot in question must have increased multiple times in last
30 years. Permitting regularization of plot in question in favour of
the petitioner would result in unjust enrichment of the petitioner
despite clear default and unauthorized/illegal possession over the
plot in question. Thus, the State Government under
letter/communication dated 24.01.2024 (Anx-21) has rightly
directed Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Jodhpur (South) to auction
the plot in question.
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit
in the present writ petitions, and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
35. The stay petitions stands dismissed.
36. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
37-38 himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:43:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
