AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amitava Roy, C.J.—These appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2012 in the corresponding writ proceedings involving identical issues with minimal and insignificant variation of contextual facts have been analogously heard. The present consolidated adjudication would thus, answer the challenge. We have heard Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Mathur learned counsel for the appellant-Director, National Capital Area Project, Mr. Umesh Shringi, learned counsel for the appellant-Murtikar Vikas Samiti and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
The skeletal facts unavoidably essential for the present pursuit, as can be gathered from the pleadings of the parties, are that on 29.11.2004, the Government of Rajasthan made a declaration for allotment of plots of land to sculptors. The State Government thereafter, issued order No. 3(720) MVV/3/2007 dated 14.2.2008 for development of Sculptor Town Trade Plan. The Director, National Capital Area Project and the Secretary, UIT Alwar conducted survey of the land for allotment of plots and in terms of the scheme, a lottery was held on 1.3.2008, whereafter a list of 115 allottees was drawn up for allotment of plots of land as contemplated. According to the respondents/writ petitioners for the purpose of such allotments, High Level Representative Committee was constituted on 28.2.2008. On 5.3.2008 allotment orders were issued and the selectees were asked to deposit the amounts, as indicated therein within a time frame so fixed. According to the respondents/writ petitioners, they duly deposited the amounts demanded, in addition to the security amount that they had already deposited with the UIT, Alwar. As inspite of all these, the possession of the plots allotted was not handed over to the allottees, notwithstanding their persistent pleas with the UIT, Alwar, they turned to this Court for redress.
The respondent No. 3, UIT Alwar, while not denying the proclamation of the Sculptures Welfare Scheme and that a Committee had been constituted to oversee the process of allotment of plots, as envisaged therein, contended that the Scheme could not be implemented, inter alia for various complaints lodged by persons asserting that though they were sculptors, their names were not included in the draw of lots and that a civil suit had also been instituted by one Ramavtar in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alwar and further, the process of lottery was not aboveboard. The UIT, Alwar however, admitted the issuance of allotment letters dated 5.3.2008 requiring the allottees to deposit the amounts, as mentioned therein, as per the schedule of payment referred thereto.
The learned Single Judge, on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, by the judgment and order impugned, allowed the writ proceedings observing that the attendant factual premise demonstrated concluded contracts between the writ petitioners and the UIT, Alwar rendering the inaction on the part of the latter illegal, unfair and unjust. Holding that in the attendant fact situation, UIT Alwar, as an instrumentality of the State, cannot be permitted to unilaterally withdraw from the process initiated by it and take it to its logical end, directions were issued to it to hand over possession of the plots to the writ petitioners in terms of the allotment letters dated 5.3.2008 requiring them (writ petitioners), at the same time, to strictly adhere to the payment schedule for liquidating their balance dues.
Being aggrieved, the UIT, Alwar and Murtikar Vikas Samiti, Alwar (Samiti), alongwith three others, are in appeal. The Samiti and its accompanying challengers not having been impleaded in the writ proceedings, have sought to enter the fray by seeking leave of this Court in this forum. Having regard to the averments made in the application seeking leave, we considered it appropriate to grant the same as the allotment of plots demonstrably is in the form of distribution of State largesse to be irrefutably required to be informed with the edicts of transparency, objectivity and fairness and more importantly, in conformance with law.
Mr. R.K. Mathur appearing for the UIT, Alwar (hereinafter referred to as ''the Trust/respondent No. 3'') by referring to Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules'') and Annexure-B thereto, has urged that as the proceedings of the lottery before being acted upon, was obligatorily required to be laid before the Trust for its approval, in absence thereof in the case in hand, the process is non est in law and thus, the allotment letters dated 5.3.2008 did not vest the writ petitioners/respondents with any right to enforce such allotment. Pointing out that out of 115 selectees, only 45 did actually deposit the amount demanded, the learned counsel insisted that the process undertaken could not be completed also, in view of serious objections against the validity thereof, for which complaints had to be lodged with the police as well as the Anti Corruption Department of the State. Expressing an apprehension that the respondents/writ petitioners, even without being handed over the possession of their plots, had been endeavouring to alienate the same through paper transactions, Mr. Mathur maintained that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with and respondent No. 3 ought to be afforded an opportunity to remodel the Scheme for allotment of the plots involved, if necessary by appropriately securing the interest of the respondents/writ petitioners. With reference to the original records pertaining to the process, he has insistently urged that it would appear therefrom that neither the process had been submitted with the Trust nor its approval had been taken as required under Annexure-B to the Rules rendering the whole exercise null and void. Mr. Mathur has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in J.P. Builders and Another Vs. A. Ramadas Rao and Another, , amongst others.
Mr. Umesh Shringi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Samiti, while generally endorsing the contentions raised on behalf of the Trust, has additionally argued that not only the writ petitions suffer from suppression of material facts pertaining to the suit filed on the same issue, the complaints lodged against the process would unequivocally demonstrate that the same (the process) was vitiated by illegalities and incurable infirmities rendering the same invalid. Contending that the final report submitted in the police case was not on merits, but in view of the pendency of the civil suit and thus, was of no significance in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners, Mr. Shringi has emphatically urged, drawing the attention of this Court, to the deeds of Power of Attorneys that the respondents/writ petitioners for illegal gain, even without being delivered the possession of their plots, have been planning to sell the same. According to the learned counsel, some of the writ petitioners, though had earlier expressed their reservations about the validity of the draw of lots, returned to this Court after a lapse of four years for unlawful gain at the cost of genuine sculptors for whom the Scheme had been conceived off.
In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners urged that as the complaint had been lodged by the sculptors, the same, besides being unfounded, is of no decisive relevance as in the process which was thoroughly valid, individual allotment letters were issued acting upon the list of selectees correctly drawn up on the basis of drawal of lots. Underlining the fact that the submission of final report by the police, unmistakably establishes the falsity of the complaints, the learned counsel argued that as no injunction order, at any point of time, had been passed in the civil suit, any omission to mention about the pendency thereof is inconsequential. In endorsement of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Rochees Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Jaipur Development Authority,
The pleaded assertions of the parties and the documents on record have been duly considered. The rival arguments have also been taken note of. There is no dissension at the Bar that the impugned process of allotment under the Scheme was governed by the provisions of the Rules. No dispute with regard to the applicability of Rule 17 read with Annexure-B appended thereto, has also surfaced in course of the arguments.
Rule 17 provides for allotment of residential plots at concessional rates as per the procedure specified in Annexure-B. Annexure B which enumerates the modalities in connection with the drawal of lots enjoined the following in clauses 10 and 11:-
As soon as a particular draw of lots is over the Chairman of the Trust will sign the result of the draw to the same, the case will be submitted to the Trust for according approval to the allotment of the plots.
After the proposal has been approved by the Trust each successful allottee will be informed of the plot allotted to him, and he will be required to pay the premium etc. under the terms and conditions relating to the allotment.
It would be apparent from the above, that the draw of lots, after the completion thereof, has to be laid with the Trust for its approval, whereafter if the same is granted, the successful allottee is to be informed about the same consequent whereupon, he would require to pay the premium etc. under the terms and conditions relating to the allotment.
A perusal of the official records pertaining to the process and laid before us, does not unimpeachably reveal that the draw of lots was ever laid before the Trust for its approval. The records contain, amongst others, a request to re-enact the drawal of lots and complaints against the process submitted by the Samiti immediately after the allotment letters were issued. Apart from clause 8 of the allotment letters which prohibited alienation of the allotted plots by the allottees, a perusal of the complaints laid by the Samiti on 3.3.2008 before the District Judge-cum-Chairman, UIT, Alwar even indicate that there were imputations of political interventions, gross arbitrariness as well as mala fide informing the allotments. Though there is no incontrovertible evidence to support that the allottees, meanwhile have in fact, transferred their plots, deeds of Power of Attorneys available on record indicate, amongst others, grant of authority to the Attorneys to enter into sale transactions on their (allottees) behalf.
On a cumulative consideration of all above, we are thus of the view that it would not be in the fitness of things, in the above factual background, that the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order should be sustained. As the official records prima facie establish that the prescriptions of Rule 17 and the norms set out in Annexure-B have not been complied with before issuance of the allotment letters, we are of the comprehension that the premise of concluded contract is inapplicable and cannot be invoked in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners. In absence of compliance of the Rules and Annexure-B, no valid contract can be visualized. As it is, a participatory process of the kind conceived off by the Scheme has to be essentially fair, pellucid, legal and beyond any reproach. In our view, the disclosures from the official records, authenticity whereof, is not under challenge and the inexplicable omission of laying of the drawal of lots before the Trust which is a mandatory requirement and a condition precedent for the validity of the process, in our estimate has rendered the same incurably invalid.
The delay on the part of the writ petitioners in approaching this Court, in our view, is also a factor weighing against them. The decision of this Court in Rochees Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is of no avail to them as in view of the non-compliance of Rule 17 read with Annexure-B, no valid contract between them and the respondent-Trust had been created.
In the above view of the matter, we are constrained to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, which is hereby set aside. The appeals are thus allowed. The respondent-Trust however, would either forthwith refund the amounts deposited by the respondents/writ petitioners and other allottees or initiate a fresh process, if so advised, for allotment of plots either under the original Scheme, if in force, or by reframing the same. In any view of the matter, the respondent-Trust would refund the amounts deposited by the writ petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The stay applications are disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be placed in all files.