Jaipur Development Authority vs Indrawati Devi Bagrodia Seva Kosh

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Jaipur Development Authority(for short ''JDA'') assailing judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') whereby appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed and order dated 20.08.2014 cancelling allotment of land to the respondent has been set aside.

Facts of the case are that the respondent, Indrawati Devi Bagrodia Seva Kosh, filed an appeal before the Tribunal stating that it is a trust created on 07.07.1994 for social works and main purpose of the trust is to establish schools, colleges for education of children, old-age homes, hospitals etc. The respondent-trust applied for allotment of 80,000 sq. meters of land for construction of old-age home upon which the petitioner-JDA allotted 4960 sq. meters of land in Bambala Institutional Area at a nominal concessional rate, i.e. 5% of reversed price vide order dated 20.04.2002 (Annexure A/3 of appeal). A lease deed was executed in pursuance of aforesaid allotment on 02.05.2003. It has been stated that as per terms of lease deed, the respondent was to start and complete construction within two years of allotment failing which the land in its position as it is will be resumed on refund of 75% of the deposited amount without interest and no compensation.

According to respondent, it submitted plans/maps for construction to the petitioner for approval on 17.05.2005. However, the respondent was informed on 14.07.2009 that the plans are under consideration and further action will be possible when the time for construction is extended. The Government vide order dated 16.10.2007 waived resumption charges and thereafter issued an order on 25.01.2010 directing the petitioner-JDA to approve the maps/plans. Maps were approved and permission for construction was granted to the respondent by the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2010 which was to remain in force upto January, 2013, but the respondent was served a notice dated 17.07.2013 to the effect that construction was to be completed by 31.03.2012 which has not been done. The respondent submitted reply thereto on 23.07.2013 asserting that time for construction was extended upto January, 2013 and within that time construction has been carried out, but suddenly, the petitioner-JDA vide order dated 20.08.2014 has cancelled the allotment of land alleging non-compliance of the terms of the lease deed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

Petitioner-JDA contested the appeal before the Tribunal and filed reply thereto. According to JDA, the respondent did not comply with the terms of the allotment. Instead of commencing the construction after getting the plans approved from JDA within six months and completing the same within a period of two years from allotment and using it for the purpose for which it has been allotted, the application for approval of plan itself was submitted after expiry of three years from the allotment. Time for completion of construction was extended by the Government vide order dated 21.09.2011 upto 31.03.2012 but the construction was not completed within such time. Hence, notice was served upon the respondent asking to show cause as to why allotment may not be cancelled and thereafter, allotment has been cancelled vide order dated 20.08.2014.

The Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide judgment dated 07.10.2014 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside order dated 20.08.2014. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-JDA.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner-JDA assailed the judgment passed by the Tribunal and argued that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that the Government extended the time for construction upto 31.03.2012. In view of the letter dated 24.07.2013, there is clear admission of the respondent on record that the construction on land was not completed by 31.03.2012. There is nothing on record to suggest that the land and the building, if any, are being utilised for the purpose for which allotment has been made. The Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that the respondent violated the terms of allotment and irrespective of much indulgence having been shown by the Government in its favour in not only extending the time but also exempting resumption charges, the respondent has not complied with the conditions of allotment. It is contended that valuable property was allotted to the respondent at nominal concessional price only for fulfillment of social purpose and not for just transferring the title and use to the allottees. Delay in construction and use of the land for purpose for which it has been allotted is not technical non-compliance with the terms of allotment, but it results in depriving the citizens of the benefits for which such allotments are made.

Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and reasoned one. The Tribunal has found that the order dated 20.08.2014 was passed arbitrarily by the petitioner-JDA. No opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent. Order dated 20.08.2014 does not reflect due application of mind by JDA. It is submitted that the respondent acted on the show cause notice dated 17.07.2013 of which reply was submitted on 23.07.2013 clarifying that maps/plans were approved on 11.02.2010, but the permission to raise construction was valid upto January, 2013. Work of construction on ground and first floors has been completed. The respondent in the reply denied that it received any other notice for timely completion of construction work and the reasons for delay were earlier explained by the respondent in its letter dated 17.07.2013. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid communication, no further notice was received by the respondent inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent before passing order of cancellation of allotment. The Tribunal, therefore, cannot be said to be unjustified in setting aside the order of cancellation dated 20.08.2014. It is also argued that despite setting aside of aforesaid order of cancellation by the Tribunal, JDA has not opened the seal/gate. The respondent has submitted a detailed representation before JDA on 05.09.2014 explaining all the aforesaid facts.

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Additional Advocate General rejoined and submitted that the Tribunal has merely set aside the order of cancellation of allotment and no specific direction has been given by the Tribunal to JDA to open the seal/gate of the land in question. If the Tribunal was of the view that the order of cancellation is not reasoned one and it does not reflect due application of mind and no effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the respondent, then the Tribunal ought to have set JDA at liberty to pass fresh order after making compliance of all the aforementioned components of the principles of natural justice.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, I find that dispute between the parties is whether the time limit for raising construction was extended by the Government upto January, 2013. While according to the petitioner-JDA, approval of the maps/plans was valid upto January, 2013, but the construction work was to be completed upto 31.03.2012 as per the order of the Government dated 21.09.2011(Annexure-15), but as per respondent, approval of maps/plans was effective upto January, 2013, as the permission for raising construction was implicit therein. This Court cannot go into this aspect for the present because the Tribunal, while relying upon various judgments of the Supreme Court, has primarily allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on the premise that JDA is bound to follow the principles of natural justice inasmuch as order of cancellation of allotment has not been passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent. It has further been observed by the Tribunal that order of cancellation does not reflect due application of mind and the order cannot be described as reasoned order. Thus, the basic elements of principle of natural justice have been given a go-bye by the petitioner-JDA. Tribunal''s order on those reasoning cannot be faulted with. However, while upholding the judgment dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Tribunal, this Court proposes to clarify two issues. Firstly, when the order of cancellation of allotment dated 20.08.2014 has been set aside by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was not required to pass specific order of opening seal/gate as it was consequential thereto and, therefore, the petitioner-JDA cannot insist to continue its seal even when the order of cancellation of allotment dated 20.08.2014 has been set aside. Secondly, when the Tribunal has set aside order of cancellation on the aforesaid grounds, JDA would be at liberty to pass fresh order, if it so desires, after making full and effective compliance of the principles of natural justice by serving a specific show cause notice and receiving its reply and providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Thereafter, if the petitioner-JDA is not persuaded to refrain from passing an order of cancellation of allotment, it shall be under legal obligation to pass a reasoned order reflecting due application of mind.

With the aforesaid observations and liberty to the petitioner, writ petition is disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of.