Disposed

Sudarshan Infotech, v. Raj.State Indu.Deve.and Inve.Corp.andORS

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2008CW/6805/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged cancellation of industrial plot allotment application. Court held respondents retain revocation rights under Rule 27 but must act reasonably. Directed respondents to consider petitioner's case sympathetically, negotiate settlements accounting for payment readiness and deposited amounts, completing exercise within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to consider petitioner's case sympathetically, negotiate for settlement considering enhanced charges and deposited amount, within two months.

Sudarshan Infotech, Vs Raj.State Indu.Deve.and… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6661/2007 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6655/2007 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6657/2007 4. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6805/2007

¶3

DATE OF ORDER :: 03-04-2008

¶4

HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,J.

¶5

Mr. J.P. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the respondents.

¶6

These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 22.3.1997(Annexure-7). It is prayed that pursuant to advertisement issued by the RIICO, petitioner not only made application for allotment of industrial plot but had also deposited quite big sum. In view of that, now cancellation of the application by the respondents is not proper.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter where allotment made by the respondents were cancelled. The subject matter was decided by this Court in Writ Petition no.4736/2007 (M/s. Advaiya Solutions Pvt. Vs. State & Ors.)and therein the cancellation of allotment was held to be bad. It is urged that the present matter is covered by the judgment in the case aforesaid and otherwise petitioner having made an application and has also submitted the project report, cancellation of the application for allotment of plot after retaining the amount is not proper. Thus, a direction is sought against the respondents for making allotment of the plot for which petitioners made application.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are having no vested right in the present matter, inasmuch as apart from submission of the application and deposition of token amount, nothing more has been done, as final order of allotment has not been issued in favour of the petitioners as was otherwise issued in the cases which were decided by this Court in Writ Petition no.4736/2007. It is also submitted that in the cases so decided, some of the petitioners therein had also gone for construction of plots, hence looking to those circumstances only, the necessary order was passed by this Court. However, the judgment in the aforesaid case would not be applicable to the present matter as no subsisting right has been created in favour of the petitioners and in that regard, reference of Rule 27 of the RIICO Land Disposal Rules, 1979 has been made wherein it is provided that RIICO can revoke any proposal for disposal of property or reserve their right for taking final decision in regard to the allotment.

¶10

In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondents prays that the present writ petitions cannot be decided in the light of the judgment referred to above and otherwise petitioner is having no substantial right.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner in

¶12

¶13

rejoinder submits that the judgment in the writ petition No.4736/06 deals with the issue regarding interpretation of Rule 27 of the Rules and referring to the judgment, it was specifically demonstrated that the same argument was otherwise dealt with by the Court in the case aforesaid wherein this Court while considering the contention raised in the writ petition, taken note of the fact that when the respondent Corporation makes a promise, then they should not defeat the same. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having deposited necessary amount which was retained by the respondents, equity have been created in their favour also. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary direction needs to be given to the respondents, if not, specific direction for allotment of the industrial plot pursuant to the application, then atleast sympathetically consideration of the application for allotment of plots in view of the fact that the petitioners have come out with the final project report for establishing the industry which would then be beneficial to the State of Rajasthan itself.

¶14

It is contented that even if, a reasonable enhanced amount is charged by the RIICO looking to the further developments made in the industrial area, the petitioners would be ready and willing to pay the same also but a direction should be given to the

¶15

¶16

respondents to consider the application of the petitioners for allotment of plots taking note of all the aspects including the facts otherwise taken by this Court in Writ Petition no.4736/07.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that though the order of allotment has not been passed in favour of the petitioner, yet they have submitted application pursuant to the call given by the respondents and deposited the required amount which were then accepted by the respondents. In view of the Rule 27 of the Rules, the respondents have a right to revoke the proposal for allotment etc. but then it is expected from the RIICO to be reasonable in those matters. The outcome of the aforesaid conclusion is not that, though respondents can revoke their proposal for allotment but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where application was invited by the respondents themselves, an amount was also accepted. It was expected from the RIICO to take a reasonable view in the matter and if at all the cancellation of the application of the petitioner was justified on a given point of time, then looking to the offer made by the petitioner during the course of argument, the RIICO may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically after taking note of the fact that they had submitted application pursuant to the call given by the RIICO and also deposited the sum

¶18

¶19

so demanded which were then retained by the RIICO itself. It is otherwise given out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if reasonable enhanced amount is to be charged by the RIICO over and above the amount originally determined, the petitioners are ready to pay the same. Looking to these reasons coupled with the reasons given in the judgment referred to above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically after taking note of the observations in this judgment and for that purpose, RIICO may call the petitioners for negotiation on all the issues and if the matter can be settled, endeavour should be made to settled the issue. Since petitioners are ready to pay higher amount, this aspect would also be taken into consideration by the respondents and otherwise during pendency of the writ petition, RIICO has not even issued advertisement for calling the application for allotment of land in dispute. Necessary exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of two months. If the matter is not finally settled between the parties even after passing the necessary observations herein, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition.

¶20

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶21

[Munishwar Nath Bhandari],J.

¶22

Praveen

Sudarshan Infotech, v. Raj.State Indu.Deve.and Inve.Corp.andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudarshan Infotech, v. Raj.State Indu.Deve.and Inve.Corp.andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Contractor Vs State and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs U.O.I.and Ors.

Vaini Ram Vs State and Ors.

Vinita Choudhary Vs State and Ors.

Ugam Devi Vs Aashi Devi and Ors.

Shri Sanwaliya Ji Mandir Mandal, Vs M/S. M.S.K. Projects India Ltd. and Ors.