Jaipur
Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Children's Academy, Jaipur & Anr [1995] INSC
626 (3 November 1995)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 284 JT 1995 (8) 346 1995 SCALE (6)424
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
This
appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated November 10, 1993 of the Division Bench of the High
Court passed in D.B. Spl. Appeal No.607 of 1991.
The
facts are not in dispute. The first respondent is an educational institution which
made a request to the appellant for allotment of 15,000 sq. yards of land in Malviya
Nagar Scheme. By proceedings dated August 12, 1988, the appellant had informed the
respondents that it had fixed the reserved price at Rs.160/- per sq. meter for
schools.
Clause
5 says that the lease money can be changed after 15 years but it will not
exceed 25% of the reserved price.
Clause
15 of the offer envisages that on non-payment of the demanded amount within one
month, the appellant will be entitled to realize interest and cancel the
allotment. In case of acceptance, Clause 16 sub-clause [ii] provides that
"if you accept the allotment of the above conditions, please deposit the
amount within one month as under". The details of the amount have been
mentioned and the total amount to be deposited was Rs.20,31,820.90. Admittedly,
the respondents had deposited only one lakh. Thereafter, the Secretary to the
appellant had communicated through a letter that the State Government had
granted permission for allotment of the land at 25% of the reserved price to
the respondent-Academy by letter dated August 12, 1988 and that is being returned.
Then
on January 12, 1990, pursuant to a letter written by the respondents on July 6,
1989, they also reiterated that they were willing to allot the land @ 25% of
the then prevailing reserved price of the land and the amount mentioned thereunder
has been specified. It was also stated expressly thus:
"Please
see that the cost of the land is deposited in favour of the Secretary, J.D.A., Jaipur,
within 30 days from the date of issue of this letter failing which the offer
stands cancelled." The allotment order dated August 12, 1988 was thereafter cancelled. Thus the previous allotment stood
cancelled and fresh offer was made subject to the respondents depositing the
amount stated thereunder within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter.
Admittedly, the amount was not deposited, except writing a letter that the
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust [Disposal of Urban Land] Rules, 1974 envisage
that 50% of the prevailing reserved price was to be paid and the appellant's
demand was illegal.
Rule
which has been relied upon reads thus:
"No
land shall be allotted for a price less than the sanctioned reserved price
except for categories covered under Rule 17." Rule 17 provides as under:
"Lands
for schools and other public and charitable institutions may be allotted on
payment of 50% of the sanctioned reserved price or with the prior permission of
the State Government free of any charge or at concessional rates." It
would thus be seen that it may be incumbent upon the appellant to allot the
land but in case they choose to allot, they may allot on payment of 50% of the
sanctioned reserved price. It would be seen that in the first offer, the appellant
had offered land @ Rs.160/- per sq. meter as reserved price and the respondents
had not complied with the same. As stated earlier, the offer stood cancelled.
In 1990, when a second offer was made, even then also, it was not complied
with. The respondents have relied upon the circular issued by the Government
amplifying as to under what circumstances allotment may be made at a lesser
price. The circular dated October 13, 1987
is only guidelines for disposal of the lands for educational, religious, charitable
or public institutions at concessional rate of 25% as the reserved price, but
the instructions were to ensure uniformity in the allotment and charging the
rates. The offer had been given charging @ Rs.160/- per sq. meter in the first
instance and the respondents had not paid the amount except Rs.1 lakh. Had they
paid the amount at reserved price and claimed refund at 50% or 25%, as the case
may, as per their own case, something could be said in their favour. But
unfortunately they did not accept the offer which was conditional. They had
chosen to deposit only Rs.1 lakh as against Rs.21 lakhs. As stated earlier, the
cancellation order was not challenged. When a fresh offer was made then also
the respondents had not complied with the offer; instead they went to the court
for a direction to give them allotment at concessional rate of 25% of original
value at Rs.160 per sq. meter. The Division Bench had thus erroneously directed
the allotment on payment of 25% of Rs.160/- per sq. yard, which offer was no longer
subsisting, since it was already cancelled. Under these circumstances, the
order of the High Court is clearly illegal.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2