Dismissed

Lrs of Staya Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Counsel

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2022CMA/84/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the special civil appeal. The appellant failed to deposit the required three-fourth bid amount within one month per the 1974 Rules, leading to automatic cancellation. The Court held the impugned judgment was final and conclusory, finding no prevention by the authorities, thus maintaining the cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with costs at the stage of special leave. The order of cancellation of the auction is affirmed.

Lrs of Staya Prakash Gupta Vs Municipal Counsel — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 84/2022

¶3

LR's Of Staya Prakash Gupta:-

¶4

Sharda Gupta W/o Satya Prakash Gupta, Resident of House No. 109, Professor Colony, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶5

Rajeev Gupta S/o Satya Prakash Gupta, Resident of House No. 109, Professor Colony, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶6

Gunjan Agarwal D/o Satya Prakash Gupta W/o Rohit Agarwal, Resident of House No. 109, Professor Colony, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Municipal Counsel, Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh Tehsil And District Hanumangarh

¶10

Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Kishan Lal Bansal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. C.S. Kotwani

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶14

Judgment

¶15

Pronounced on 25/04/2022

¶16

01vihykFkhZ&izkFkhZx.k us ;g vihy vkns'k 43 fu;e 01 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&02] guqekux<+ ds }kjk fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 80@2016 lR;izdk'k cuke uxjifj"kn~ guqekux<+ vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-11-2021 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk&i= varxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk [kkfjt fd;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶17

02eSaus i{kdkjku~ ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl lquh] vfHkys[k ,oa vk{ksfir vkns'k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶18

03;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&izkFkhZx.k us ;g rdZ fn;k fd rRdkyhu vfrfjDr dysDVj ,oa lfpo] e.Mh fodkl lfefr] guqekux<+ }kjk fnukad

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CMA-84/2022]

¶21

02-03-2001 dks iz'uxr Hkw[kaM la[;k ch&166 dh uhykeh fu;r dh] ftlesa izkFkhZ us Hkkx fy;k vkSj vf/kdre cksyh 91]000@&#i;s izkFkhZ&oknh ds i{k esa NksM+h xbZ vkSj mlh fnu fu;ekuqlkj 25 izfr'kr jkf'k 22]750@&#i;s tek djok,A 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr jkf'k l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk uhykeh Lohdr fd, tkus ds i'pkr~ tek djok, tkus dh 'krZ FkhA rRdkyhu vfrfjDr dysDVj ,oa lfpo] e.Mh fodkl lfefr] guqekux< ds dk;kZy; ls izkFkhZ&oknh dks Hkw[kaM dh uhykeh dh Lohdfr dh lwpuk ,oa 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr jkf'k tek djokus dk dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;kA lu 2002 esa e.Mh fodkl lfefr] guqekux<+ dk dk;kZy; lekIr dj e.Mh {ks= dk {ks=kf/kdkj izfroknhx.k dks fn;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ us vizkFkhZx.k ds le{k mifLFkr gksdj 75 izfr'kr jkf'k tek djokus vkSj Hkw[kaM dk dCtk lkSaius dk fuosnu fd;kA izkFkhZ 'ks"k jkf'k tek djokus gsrq gj le; rS;kj jgk gSA ysfdu izkFkhZ dks dksbZ lwpuk fn, fcuk ;g Hkw[kaM fujLr fd;k x;k gSA vizkFkhZx.k iz'uxr Hkw[kaM dh uhykeh djokuk pkgrs gSa] blfy, uhykeh dh dk;Zokgh dks jksduk vko';d gSA ;fn uhykeh gks tkrh gS rks vihy fu"Qy gks tk,xhA vk{ksfir vkns'k vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gksus ls vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 24/2009 Municipal Board, Nohar Versus Rajkumar & Others. esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 13-07-2009 dh izfr izLrqr dhA

¶22

04;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&vizkFkhZx.k us mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ fn;k fd vihykFkhZx.k&oknhx.k dk nkok fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftldh izFke vihy fopkjk/khu gSA izFke vihyh; U;k;ky; esa vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu izLrqr fd;k] tks vk{ksfir vkns'k ds }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA nks v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa dh concurrent finding gSA 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr jkf'k 30 fnu esa tek djokuh Fkh ysfdu vihykFkhZx.k&oknhx.k us 'ks"k jkf'k 8 lky rd tek ugha djokbZ] blfy, vkoaVu dh dk;Zokgh Lor% fujLr gks xbZA izR;FkhZ }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr jkf'k tek djokus ds fy, uksfVl Hkh izsf"kr fd;k x;k ysfdu uksfVl izkfIr ds ckotwn Hkh vihykFkhZx.k us fu;r vof/k esa 'ks"k 75 izfr'kr jkf'k tek ugha djokbZ] blfy, izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ izFken`"V;k ekeyk ugha curk gSA vk{ksfir vkns'k fcYdqy mfpr ,oa fof/klEer gS] ftlesa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha gaSA blfy, vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k t;iqj ihB }kjk S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4230/2017 Vineet Jindal Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Council,

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

[CMA-84/2022]

¶25

Sawai Madhopur & Ors. esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 18-04-2017 dh izfr izLrqr dhA

¶26

05eSaus mi;qZDr ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA tgka rd vihykFkhZ&izkFkhZx.k ds bl rdZ dk iz'u gS fd izkFkhZ dks 'ks"k jkf'k tek djokus dk dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gS( izkFkhZ 75 izfr'kr jkf'k tek djokuk pkgrk Fkk ysfdu vizkFkhZx.k }kjk tek ugha dh xbZ( izkFkhZ dks fdlh izdkj dh lwpuk ds fcuk vizkFkhZx.k us iz'uxr Hkw[kaM dk vkoaVu fujLr dj fn;kA ysfdu izkFkhZ ds mDr dFkuksa esa dksbZ cy ,oa lkj izrhr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd vk{ksfir vkns'k dh i"B la[;k 04 esa ;g Li"V vafdr gS fd vfrfjDr dysDVj ,oa lfpo] e.Mh fodkl lfefr] guqekux<+ ds }kjk fnukad 12-03-2001 dks izkFkhZ dks uksfVl izsf"kr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ dks fnukad 18-12-2008 dks jftLVMZ Mkd ls uksfVl izsf"kr fd;kA vk{ksfir vkns'k ds i"B la[;k 04 esa ;g Hkh vafdr gS fd uksfVl izkfIr ds ckn izkFkhZ us ,y-vkbZ-lh- ls _.k ds fy, vkosnu fd;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks iwjh izfØ;k dk Kku FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ dks dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k gksA

¶27

06bl laca/k esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr bl U;k;ky; dh led{k t;iqj ihB }kjk S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4230/2017 Vineet Jindal Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sawai Madhopur & Ors. esa O;Dr fuEukafdr er egRoiw.kZ gS %&

¶28

"As per the terms and conditions and even as per the Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short ‘the Rules of 1974’), a successful bidder is required to deposit 3/4th amount of the bid within one month of the acceptance of the bid. There is no provision to invite the bidder to come and deposit remaining 3/4th amount, rather, it has to be tendered by the bidder himself. The petitioner unnecessarily made correspondence with the respondents to get a call for deposition of the amount for years together but did not deposit the amount. As per the Rules of 1974, failure to deposit the amount results in automatic cancellation of the auction of the plot. Relevant part of the Schedule A appended to the Rules of 1974 is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶29

“(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

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CMA-84/2022]

¶32

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:

¶33

Provided that in case of default in depositing the three-fourth amount of bid within the period prescribed above, the one-fourth of the amount of the bid deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and auction of land shall automatically stand cancelled:

¶34

Provided further that the board may regularise such auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation within a period of ten months from the date of such automatic cancellation if the successful bidder is prepared to pay the three-fourth amount of the bid money plus interest @ 15% per annum upto the regularisation of auction of land and in addition also an amount of penalty at the following rates:-

¶35

Amount of the bid money	Penalty after the date of automatic cancellation.
(a) not exceeding Rs. 5,000/	Rs. 250/- p.m.
(b) exceeding Rs. 5,000/- & upto Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 500/- p.m.
(c) exceeding Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 1,000/- p.m.

¶36

(d) the amount of penalty mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c) above shall not exceed the principal amount.

¶37

(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.

¶38

(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 (i) 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 (i) above upto the month in which the case was referred to State Government by the Board:

¶39

Provided that after depositing one-fourth of the amount of bid by the successful bidder, if he is restrained/not allowed to deposit the remaining

¶40

(5 of 5)

¶41

[CMA-84/2022]

¶42

amount by any act to the board or the State Government, as the case may be or resultant to any order of the court or any legal proceedings, the interim period shall not count for the purpose of calculating the amount of such penalty, forfeiture of the one-fourth amount or automatic cancellation of the auction.”

¶43

The Schedule A under rule 14 of the Rules of 1974 provides period to deposit the amount after auction. The petitioner has not deposited 3/4th amount till date thus as per the Rules of 1974 allotment get cancelled automatically. Therefore, prayer made by the petitioner to set aside impugned order dated 23.9.2016 cannot be accepted."

¶44

07dqy feykdj mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i vihykFkhZ&izkFkhZx.k dh ;g vihy cyghu ,oa lkjghu izrhr gksrh gSA vk{ksfir vkns'k fcYdqy mfpr ,oa fof/klEer gS] ftlesa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gS] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k iqf"V fd, tkus ds ;ksX; gSaA

¶45

08ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&02] guqekux<+ ds }kjk fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 80@2016 lR;izdk'k cuke uxjifj"kn~ guqekux<+ vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 09-11-2021 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

¶46

09bl vkns'k dh izfr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr gksA

¶47

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶48

77-Rajendra/-

¶49

;g vkns'[email protected]; Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348(i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dk s izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA

Lrs of Staya Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Counsel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Staya Prakash Gupta v. Municipal Counsel

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

Resham Devi Vs Mubin Khan

Munshi Ram and Anr. Vs U.I.I.Co.Ltd.and Ors.

Reshma Ram Vs Sukha Ram and Ors.

Bhagwan Ram Vs Padamraj Jain

M/S Karma Marbles,Borawad Vs M/S Balaji Marble Mines and Anr.

Vimla Vs Badri Narayan