The Y.M.C.A. Jabalpur vs Jabalpur Development Authority and Another

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—Petitioner, the registered institution under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 initially has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India without challenging any specific order of authorities of respondent No. 1 to issue the appropriate writ for the following reliefs:-

(a) Be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to decide the case of the petitioner as per the direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court contained in Annexure P-3 and allot the 8000 Sq. ft of plot to the petitioner in Scheme No. 18 Civil Center, Marhatal, Jabalpur.

(b) Be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition directing the respondent to abstain from making allotment of the said plot of land in favour of any other person or organization.

(c) Be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed fit and just by this Hon''ble Court.

Subsequent to filing the petition on 17.7.06, by way of amendment application dated 11.2.07, filed on dated 12.2.07 the petitioner has amended the petition in the light of subsequent events and also prayed to issue the appropriate writ for the following relief:-

(d) This Hon''ble Court may further be pleased to quash the allotment of the land in question made by respondent No. 1 in favour of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner further most respectfully prays that the Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the allotment made by the JDA in favour of respondent No. 1 and further direct the respondent No. 2 to immediately stop all activity whether construction or otherwise, on the land in question which had been previously allotted to the petitioner.

The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the petitioner being registered society under the aforesaid Adhiniyam is working for holistic development of its members by inculcating among them good human qualities so that they become better citizens to give strength to the nation. The membership of the petitioner society is not restricted to followers of any particular religion. Any young man, who pledges to abide by the norms and values, is welcomed with open arms irrespective of his religion, class, place of birth, creed, colour or race. The respondent No. 1/JDA is an autonomous body constituted under the provisions of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short ''the Adhiniyam'') and is also covered under the instrumentality of the State defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As per further averments, the petitioner Society was under the requirement of plot or land in the city of Jabalpur to construct the community hall to carry out the activities to achieve the object of it. Pursuant to it, an application in this regard was made to the State Government. In response of the same, the State Government vide order dated 21.8.96 (Annexure P/1) had directed the Chief Executive Officer of the JDA to allot 8,000/- sq. ft of land in scheme No. 18, Civic Centre, Marhatal, Jabalpur with a direction to give the same on the concessional premium and lease rent to the extent of 50% from the market rate. On such recommendation, the plot of 8000/- sq. ft land was allotted to the petitioner/society by the respondent No. 1/JDA. It is also stated that one another plot of the land of the same scheme admeasuring 20000/- sq.ft. was allotted to one Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal, the proprietor of ''Dainik Bhaskar'' daily newspaper for setting-up the printing press. Such allotment of Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal was made by the State Government vide order dated 21.11.95. Subsequent to such allotments, one Shri Kewal Kumar Bhalla filed W.P. No. 4552/96 before this court challenging the legality and propriety of such allotment in favour of the petitioner and Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal. On consideration, such petition by upholding the aforesaid allotment of the petitioner and said Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.2003 (Annex. P/2) with certain directions.

Being aggrieved with such order (Annex. P/2), said Kewal Kumar Bhalla approached to the Apex Court in SLP in which after granting leave, the same was registered as Civil Appeal No. 477/06 and C.A. No. 478/06 respectively. On consideration, vide common order dated 13.1.06 (Annex. P/3), by allowing such appeals in part, the aforesaid allotments of the petitioners as well as Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal were set aside and respondent No. 1 JDA was directed to consider the matter of the allotment afresh in terms of the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam (in short ''the Adhiniyam'') and its Rules. In compliance of such order of the Apex Court, the respondent No. 1 JDA revoked the earlier orders of allotment of above mentioned plots to the petitioner as well of Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal vide order dated 14.2.06. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the respondent No. 1 was under obligation to reconsider the cases of the petitioner and Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal in accordance with the direction given by the Apex Court (Annex. P/3) by treating their initial application filed before the State Government or JDA to be the fresh applications. But by keeping the case of petitioner at bay, only the case of Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal has been reconsidered by respondent No. 1 and allotted him the plot in the aforesaid scheme. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such discriminatory act on the part of the respondent No. 1, filed an application dated 17.4.06 (Annex. P/5) in the office of respondent No. 1 to give the equal treatment to the petitioner in allotment of the plot. But the same was not allotted to it. It is further stated that the respondent has also made allotment of plot in Marhatal area in favour of various religions and other institutions for diverse number of uses and community halls to Gujrati, Kachhi Jain, Bengali and Marathi communities which have constructed and are running their community halls. Thus, on identical terms and the principle of parity, the petitioners institutions be also allotted the aforesaid 8000/- sq. ft of land in such scheme.

Initially it was stated that the office bearer of petitioner is under information from the reliable sources that respondent No. 1 authority, is making efforts to allot the aforesaid plot, which was initially allotted to the petitioner illegally and arbitrary manner to some other person contrary to the right of the petitioner.

In pendency of the petition, the petitioner has amended the petition by stating that the land in question has been allotted by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 M/s. Samdariya Construction in clandestine manner without deciding the case of the petitioner despite the orders of the Hon''ble Apex Court with the averments that such allotment being made without deciding the case of the petitioner in favor of the respondent No. 2, is not only per se arbitrary and illegal but also amounts to over riding, by-passing and circumventing the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to it, the respondents deserves to be suitably punished for such act. In view of such amended pleadings, an additional prayer as clause (d) for quashment of such allotment is also inserted in the prayer clause.

In response of the aforesaid petition, on behalf of respondent No. 1 (at that time it was the sole respondent), the initial return was filed on 24.7.06. In such return by denying the allegations alleged against such respondent, it is further stated that vide order dated 21.8.96 (Annex. R-1), the State Government had directed to this respondent to allot 8,000/- sq. ft land to the petitioner. Such order of the State was challenged by one Kewal Kumar Bhalla by way of PIL in W.P. No. 4522/96. On consideration vide order dated 12.12.03, such order of the state was held to be justified. Simultaneously, some another PIL was also filed with respect of the allotment to Dainik Bhaskar. On consideration by upholding the order of State Government, such petition was also dismissed. Against such order, on filing the SLP by said Kewal Kumar Bhalla, on consideration, the same was allowed vide dated 13.1.06 and by setting aside the aforesaid order of this court, the matter was remitted back to the authorities of respondent No. 1 with some directions to decide the application of the petitioner and Dainik Bhaskar afresh. Pursuant to such order of the Apex Court, the aforesaid allotment made in favor of the petitioner was canceled by this respondent vide order dated 14.2.06 (Annex. P-2). In further averments it is stated that the petitioner has not made any application in its office for allotment of the land even no request in this regard was made. Such conduct of the petitioner clearly transpires that it was not inclined to get allotment of the land. In compliance of direction of the Apex Court, this respondent was required to consider the matter of the petitioner as well as of Dainik Bhaskar Group within the period of two months. Pursuant to order of the Apex Court said Dainik Bhaskar Group filed fresh application on 14.2.2006 for allotment of land at the prevailing market rate while the petitioner did not make any such request to the respondent No. 1. The aforesaid application of Dainik Bhaskar Group and the issue regarding allotment of the land to the petitioner was considered in the meeting of the board of respondent held on 24.3.06. In such meeting the application of Dainik Bhaskar Group was accepted while in the lack of application of the petitioner, the board had taken the decision to dispose of such part of land in accordance with the Disposal Rules of 1975 at prevailing rates. In support of such contention, the minutes of the proceeding dated 24.3.06 (Annex. R-3) is also annexed. It is also stated that after remanding the matter, in view of the observation of the Apex court, no request was made on behalf of the petitioner to consider its application made to the State Government as fresh application for allotment of the land. So, in the light of any such request, the above mentioned decision was taken by the Board. It is further stated that aforesaid disputed land has not been allotted to some other person. With these averments in the initial return, the prayer for dismissal of the petition is made.

In pendency of the petition, on behalf of this respondent No. 1 on dated 29.1.07 an additional reply was filed, in which, it is stated that during pendency of the present writ petition, the aforesaid earlier application of the petitioner for allotment of land was placed before the Board of JDA in its meeting held on 30.10.06. On consideration, the said application was rejected on the ground that the prescribed use of the land is commercial, whereas; the petitioner has sought allotment of the same for construction of community hall. The copy of such resolution dated 30.10.06 is also annexed as Annex. R-1 with this additional reply. It is also stated that the information regarding such rejection was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.1.07 Annex. R-2 annexed with this additional reply. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed this petition only by stating its grievance that his application has not been considered in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court. So, in view of the aforesaid resolution in which the directions of the Apex Court has been considered, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

Subsequent to aforesaid on impleading the respondent No. 2 as party in the matter, on its behalf of such respondent No. 2, the return was filed in which by denying the allegations stated in the petition, it is stated that in respect of land admeasuring 3827 Square meter which forms the part of plot No. 13, 14/1 and 3/4, of the said scheme the tenders were invited by the JDA for construction of commercial complex under the promoter scheme. The notice inviting tender was published in daily Dainik Bhaskar and Daily Nav Bharat on 16.7.04. This respondent submitted its bid on 4.10.04 and the same being highest, was accepted by the respondent No. 1 and communicated to it vide letter dated 8.11.05 (Annex. R-2-1). Such bid of the respondent was also approved by the State Government on 13.10.05. In compliance of the directions of respondent No. 1, vide communication dated 22.12.05, the necessary requisite sum of the premium was also deposited by this respondent vide Annex. R-2-3. It is also stated that at that time a PIL W.P. 3665/04 was pending in which some interim order was in existence. In such petition the same was vacated by the division bench of this court vide order dated 26.4.06. It is further stated that with respect of the aforesaid allotment of land, which is not the subject matter of the disputed land of this petition, the entire action had taken place between respondent No. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. It is further stated that the petitioner is unnecessarily dragging this respondent into controversy. From perusal of the initial order of allotment (Annex. P/1) made in favor of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that petitioner was initially allotted 8000 sq. ft of land in scheme No. 18 of JDA but particulars of such land has not been stated and letter such allotment was cancelled by the Apex Court as stated in the petition itself. It is also stated that this respondent is not raising any construction on any the land belonging to the petitioner. It is also stated that in compliance of the direction of the Apex Court vide order dated 13.1.06 Annex. P/3, within the prescribed period no requisite application as per requirement of the Adhiniyam was filed on behalf of the petitioner while, on behalf of Dainik Bhaskar Group a fresh application was submitted and the same was considered by the respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 15.2.06 while, in the lack of any application of the petitioner, it was resolved (Annex. R-2-4) that the land in question be disposed of as per Disposal Rules of 1975.

Subsequent to filing the aforesaid return on behalf of respondent No. 2, an additional return was filed on 13.8.13 contending that in view of subsequent development, the same is necessary. In such return it is stated that after allotment of the aforesaid described land admeasuring 3827 square meter of plot No. 13, 14/1 and 3/4 stated in the earlier return, the respondent after taking necessary approval and sanction from the concerning authorities constructed the six storied building of Mall in the name and style of Samdariya Mall. It is further stated that adjoining to the aforesaid land some additional land was lying vacant, so on behalf of this respondent the applications dated 1.5.08 and 24.6.08 for allotment of such land were submitted. The same were considered by the respondent No. 1 in its meeting of the Board of Directors dated 19.5.08 and the approval for allotment of such land in favor of this respondent was given. The copy of such application and minutes of the meeting are annexed with this additional return Annexure.R-2-5 and Annexure-R-2-6. Pursuant to such decision of the Board of respondent No. 1, the agreement had taken place between the parties on 13.2.09 Annexure-R-2-7. Subsequent to that, the said agreement dated 3.2.09 came to the notice of Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur, on which, vide order dated 4.5.12, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 48(b) of the Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, held that the said agreement has been executed on deficit stamp duty and directed the answering respondents to deposit Rs. 25,24,815/- and penalty of Rs. 1 lac. The answering respondent has challenged the said order by filing a revision before the Board of Revenue. On dismissing the same vide order dated 26.6.12 on the ground of maintainability being dissatisfied, the respondent had filed W.P. No. 9782/12 in this court. On consideration, the same was allowed vide order dated 17.7.12 Annexure. R-2-8 and case was remitted back to the Board of Revenue to decide the revision application in accordance with law. Pursuant to that vide order dated 21.9.12, the Board of Revenue held the aforesaid agreement to be a lease-deed and directed payment of stamp duty of Rs. 15,09,100/-. A copy of such order is annexed as Annexure-R-2-9.

In response of the aforesaid return of respondent No. 2, on behalf of the petitioner, the rejoinder dated 3.9.13 was filed on record whereby the allotment of the aforesaid adjoining land to respondent No. 2 has been challenged on the ground that in such allotment the direction of the Apex Court given in the order Annex. P/3 has not been complied with and, in addition to it, it is also stated that such allotment has been given in favor of respondent No. 2 contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1975. Various rules have also been referred in the rejoinder and, in such premises, it is stated that if the allotment of land is made in favor of Dainik Bhaskar Group then on the ground of parity, the allotment of the land should have also been made in favor of the present petitioner because the initial application of Dainik Bhaskar Group was for installation of printing press and as per aforesaid decision of the Apex Court the purpose of the land in dispute was found to be industrial purpose and as per case of respondent No. 1, accordingly the same disputed land being marked for commercial purposes, could not be allotted for any other purpose but the land in the same scheme has been allotted for the industrial purpose to the Dainik Bhaskar and the petitioner''s case for allotment of the land to construct the community hall has not been considered and, in such premises, the prayer for allowing the petition is made.

Shri Vipin Yadav, learned appearing counsel of the petitioner after taking me through the petition as well as the annexed papers along with the rejoinder and other documents available on record by referring rule 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 18 of the Niyam of 1975 argued that the authorities of respondent No. 1 ought to have allotted the alleged plot to the petitioner on the ground of parity, as allotted to said Dainik Bhaskar. In any case, the authorities of respondent No. 1 did not have any authority to discriminate the petitioner in such allotment. Said Dainik Bhaskar has been allotted the plot for industrial purpose to install the printing press which does not fall under the category of commercial purpose as held by the Apex Court in the order Annexure-P/3. In support of his contention he placed his reliance on the decided cases of the Apex Court in the matter of Bihar State Govt. Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. Bihar Education Service Association and others And Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. Anup Mukherjee and others-2012 AIR SCW 6454, in the matter of Government of Goa Vs. A.H. Jaffar and Sons and Another, and in the matter of Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang, and prayed to quash the allotment of the impugned plot by the respondent No. 1 in favor of respondent No. 2 and allot the same to the petitioner on the ground of parity by allowing this petition.

On the other hand, Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, learned counsel of respondent No. 1 by justifying the action of such respondent No. 1 regarding allotment of the plot measuring 6250 sq.ft. to the respondent No. 2 said that the same has been allotted to respondent No. 2 after compliance of the decision of the Apex Court in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and its Niyam of 1975. In continuation he said that after passing the order (Annex. P-3) by the Apex Court, in compliance of the same, the allotment of the plot in favor of Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal of Dainik Bhaskar and the petitioner were revoked by respondent No. 1. Therefore Dainik Bhaskar moved the fresh application while no such fresh application was made on behalf of the present petitioner. On consideration such application of Dainik Bhaskar, being in consonance of the scheme was allowed and 20000 sq. ft land was allotted to it but, in the lack of any fresh application on behalf of the petitioner, it was resolved by the respondent No. 1 that such land be disposed of in accordance with the rules and regulations and the same was stated in the initial return dated 24.7.06. Subsequently, in pendency of the petition, on examining the matter, it was found that the petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the application of the petitioner filed earlier has not been considered by treating the same to be a fresh application in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court then again the same was reconsidered by the Board of respondent No. 1 on 30.10.06. On such consideration it was resolved that the petitioner''s application dated 11.12.95 being filed for allotment of the land to construct the community hall and the land in question being reserved for commercial purpose under the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1973 could not be allotted to the petitioners and, pursuant to it, such application/proposal of the petitioner was rejected. In continuation, he said that for the sake of the arguments if the petitioner''s application is considered on merits today or had been considered within two months from the date of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court even then on the aforesaid ground, the same could not be and would not have been allowed. So, in such premises, the petitioner has no authority or right to get the allotment of the aforesaid plot to construct the community hall. In the available scenario, it could not be inferred that while allotting the land to the Dainik Bhaskar, any discrimination has been carried out with the petitioner. As such, on the basis of fresh application of Dainik Bhaskar Group, the allotment of stated land has been made to it for commercial purpose and not for any other purpose. However, in the absence of Dainik Bhaskar and Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal as respondents in the present matter, such question could neither be considered nor adjudicated by the court in the petition. He further said that the above mentioned part of the land was not given to the respondent No. 2 through the procedure of auction provided under the concerning Niyam 1975 because of under Niyam 27 of the Niyam, 1975 the adjoining vacant land of the project of the other person could be given to such person without following the procedure provided for auction if he is interested to get the same for such project on the terms and conditions of the respondent No. 1. Thus the compliance of the aforesaid Rules referred by the petitioner counsel were not necessary. In such premises the land was rightly allotted to the respondent No. 2. With this submission he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Shri R.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sanjay Agarwal, the appearing counsel of respondent No. 2 by adopting the arguments advanced by the counsel of respondent No. 1 further said the allotment of plot to Dainik Bhaskar Group was carried out by the respondent No. 1 on the basis of its fresh application for the commercial purpose so the question of parity is not available to the petitioner and, in such premises, it could not be deemed that any discrimination has been carried out with the petitioner. He further said that the authority of respondent No. 1 has allotted the disputed land to the respondent No. 2 the earlier allottee of adjoining other land for its big project in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam of 1973 and its Niyam of 1975, thus the petitioner has no right to challenge such allotment on any of the grounds or the rules referred by the petitioner''s counsel. In any case, the petitioner did not have any locus standi to challenge the allotment of the land in favor of respondent No. 2. With this submission, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties so also the documents annexed with such pleadings by the parties. It is undisputed fact on record that considering the initial prayer of the petitioner herein, the State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 21.8.96 Annexure P/1 had directed to CEO of respondent No. 1/JDA to allot 8000 sq. ft land from the land situated at Civic Center in accordance with the circular of the revenue department bearing No. M-6-173/96/seven/c/2-b/Nazul dated 31.5.96 with a direction that the petitioner/institution be given the relaxation of fifty percent sum of the premium as well as in the lease rent. Simultaneously, as per the case of the petitioner, 20,000 sq. ft land was also allotted to Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal for installation of printing press of Dainik Bhaskar. Such allotment was challenged by one Kewal Kumar Bhalla through PIL in W.P. No. 4522/96. The allotment of Dainik Bhaskar was also challenged. On consideration, of such PIL vide order dated 12.12.03 by affirming the allotment order (Annex. P/1) of the State Government, the writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, on which, the said petitioner approach the Apex Court in SLP No. 12442/03 and SLP No. 22582/04. After granting the leave, such petitions were admitted by the Apex Court as Civil Appeal No. 477/06 and 478/06. On consideration, by allowing both the appeals vide common judgment dated 13.1.06 (Annex. P/3), the order of this Court (Annex. P/2) was set aside with some directions and observations. The operative part of the judgment of the Apex Court reads as under:-

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the question as regards allotment of land is left to the Jabalpur Development Authority. The Authority may consider the matter afresh for grant of such allotment in favour of the private respondents herein treating the applications filed by them either before it or before the State Government as fresh applications. Such applications must be processed strictly in terms of the provisions of the 1973 Act and the Rules framed thereunder as also keeping in view the Master Plan. Such a decision should be taken by the Competent Authority of the JDA at an early date preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The JDA shall return the amount deposited by the Private Respondents, if any, within four weeks from date.

These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent but in the facts and circumstances of this case there shall be no order as to costs.

Subsequent to aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court Annexure P/3, vide order dated 14.2.06 Annex. P/4, the aforesaid earlier allotment of the land in favor of the petitioner was canceled by respondent No. 1. As per case of the respondent No. 1 before this Court, the aforesaid earlier allotment of the land to Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agarwal for installation of the printing press was also canceled in compliance of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court on the same tune on which the allotment of the petitioner was canceled.

Subsequent to aforesaid, according to the case of the petitioner, in compliance of the Apex Court decision, the Dainik Bhaskar Group was allotted the land in aforesaid Scheme No. 18 while the petitioner''s case was neither considered in accordance with the directions of the Apex Court nor the requisite land was allotted to it, on which, on behalf of the petitioner herein, an application-cum-representation dated 17.4.06 (Annexure P/5) was submitted in the office of respondent No. 1 whereby the prayer for allotment of the land to the petitioner/institution was made. It is admitted fact that initially this petition was filed against respondent No. 1 and in response of the notice of the petition, on behalf of respondent No. 1 JDA, the initial return was filed on 24.7.06. According to such return, the averments of the petition alleging that the respondent is going to transfer such land to some other third person contrary to the directions of the Apex Court was denied. It is also stated in the return that the authority was directed by the Apex Court to consider the matter afresh for grant of such allotment in favor of the petitioner and Dainik Bhaskar Group within two months. So, in compliance of the order of the Apex Court, vide order dated 14.2.06, the earlier allotment of the petitioner as well as Dainik Bhaskar Group was canceled. Subsequent to that, on behalf of Dainik Bhaskar Group, a fresh application for allotment of some land was filed while no such fresh application for allotment was filed on behalf of the petitioner. After receiving such application of Dainik Bhaskar, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court dated 13.1.06, an opinion dated 14.3.06 was also obtained from the office of Dy. Advocate General and thereafter along with such opinion, the same was placed for consideration before the Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 on 24.3.06. On such date vide decision No. 1750, in view of said opinion, the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1973 and Rule 6(1) of Vyayan Niyam 1975 and the master plan, it was decided that the proceedings of allotment of 20000/- sq.ft. land @ of Rs. 20,767/- per square meter as per the Collector guidelines be carried out in favor of Dainik Bhaskar Group. On such date it was also resolved that no application has been received on behalf of the petitioner/institution for allotment of the land, thus such other land be disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid Niyam. In such premises, it is apparent that the Dainik Bhaskar Group was not allotted the land on his original application but was allotted on its amended and fresh application so also in accordance with the object of the development scheme and for the purpose for which such land was reserved.

It is apparent from the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court that on consideration the impugned land of the development scheme was found to be the land reserved and ear-marked for commercial purposes and not for the other purposes. It is also undisputed fact of the case at hand that the petitioner in its initial application has made the request for allotment of such plot to erect the community hall for the institution to achieve its object while the Dainik Bhaskar Group had initially demanded such land for installation of the printing press but subsequently after remitting the matter by the Apex Court as per available record such Dainik Bhaskar Group has filed the fresh application by changing the purpose in accordance with the development scheme of respondent No. 1 and that is why the land was allotted to it. But in entire record, I have not found any where that even after remitting the matter from the Apex Court, the petitioner/institution has made any fresh application or any application to modify the earlier application to change the purpose in consonance with the scheme for allotment of such land. So, in such premises, the demand of the petitioner to allot such land was remain to construct the community hall for which the land in dispute is not reserved or earmarked.

It is settled proposition of the law and also apparent from the above quoted operative part of the judgment of the Apex Court Annex. P/3 that the impugned land being commercial land could not be allotted for the industrial purpose or for other purpose for which the petitioner has made request. The same could have been allotted only for the commercial purposes.

True it is, on going through the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court Annex. P/3, it is apparent that installation of printing press or construction of community hall are not found to be the part of the purpose of commercial activities and, in such premises, after setting aside the earlier allotments of the petitioner as well as of Bishambar Dayal Agarwal the matter was remitted by the Apex Court with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the matter afresh for allotment of such land in favor of the private respondents i.e. the petitioner and said Agrawal of the Dainik Bhaskar Group by treating their earlier applications to be the fresh applications. It was also directed by the Apex Court that such application must be processed directly in terms of the provision of Adhiniyam of 1973 and Rules framed thereunder so also keeping in view the master plan. The authority of respondent No. 1 was also directed to take the decision in the matter as early as possible preferably within the period of two months from the date of receiving the copy of the order of the Apex Court. So, in such premises, it appears that within two months, the aforesaid resolution Annex. R-3 was passed by the authorities of respondent No. 1 in its meeting of Board of Directors on 24.3.06.

After receiving the notice of this petition and filing the initial earlier return, on behalf of respondent No. 1, an additional reply dated 29.1.07 along with resolution of Board of Directors of respondent No. 1 dated 30.10.2006 (Annex. R-1) annexed with such additional reply is also placed on record. In the aforesaid resolution it is stated that although on earlier occasion, in the lack of any fresh application on behalf of the petitioner, the alleged plot was not allotted to it but by this subsequent resolution, the matter was considered in view of the directions of the Apex Court and it was resolved that the petitioner/institution has made the application to construct the building of community hall while the questionable land is commercial and same could not be disposed of without inviting offer in accordance with the Vyayan Niyam of 1975 and, in such premises also, the original application of the petitioner dated 11.12.95 was dismissed with a direction to send the information to the State. In this regard an information dated 18.1.07 Annex. R-2 (annexed with the additional reply) was also sent to the petitioner/institution.

In the aforesaid premises even after remanding the matter by the Apex Court, the petitioner was not entitled for allotment of the aforesaid land to construct the building for community hall because as per the development scheme such land is ear marked for commercial purposes. So, firstly on this count, the petitioner does not deserve for grant of any relief against the respondent No. 1 for allotment of such land.

Subsequent to the aforesaid resolution, by way of amendment application, the petitioner has amended the petition challenging the allotment process of 6240 sq. ft land to Samdariya Builder Pvt. Ltd with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of such allotment process and also impleaded the aforesaid allottee M/s. Samdariya Builders Pvt. Ltd Jabalpur as respondent No. 2 stating that such land ought to have been allotted to the petitioner on its original application as allotted to the Dainik Bhaskar Group on its application and amended petition was also placed on record.

In response of such amended petition, on behalf of respondent No. 2, in its return it was stated that after initial allotment of the land admeasuring 3827 square meter out of plot No. 13, 14/1 and 3/4 to this respondent, it has constructed the six storied mall in the name and style of Samdariya Mall. The same is having three cinema theaters besides the commercial shops. It is further stated that adjoining to the aforesaid allotted land of 3827 sq. meter, admesuring 6240 sq. ft, additional land of respondent No. 1 was lying vacant. On which, this respondent No. 2 has submitted its applications dated 1.5.2008 and 24.6.08 Annex. R-2-5 in the office of the authority of respondent No. 1. On consideration, the authorities of respondent No. 1, by virtue of rule 27 of Vyayan Rules, 1975 by resolution dated 9.5.08 Annex. R-2-6, subject to decision of this petition, has allotted such land on commercial rate to this respondent No. 2. In this regard, an agreement dated 13.2.09 (Annex. R-2-7) had also taken place between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1. It is also stated that the dispute relating to the stamp duty with respect of the agreement has also been resolved by the co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 17.7.12 in W.P. No. 9782/12.

In response of the aforesaid return of respondents and additional reply of respondent No. 1 a rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. In such rejoinder, the allotment of the aforesaid land of 6240 sq.ft. in favor of respondent No. 2 has been challenged on the ground that the same has been made without following the procedure prescribed under the Niyam of 1975 for allotment of the commercial land of the scheme with the further submission to allot the land to the petitioner on the ground of parity as the land allotted to Dainik Bhaskar whose allotment was also set aside by the Apex Court. Various rules as stated above were referred by the petitioner counsel regarding allotment of the commercial land with the submission that the same have not been followed by the respondent No. 1.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, in the case at hand, this court has to answer the following questions:-

(a) Whether the petitioner was having any entitlement for allotment of the disputed land to construct the community hall which is ear marked for the commercial purpose.

(b) Whether the petitioner has any parity in comparison of Dainik Bhaskar Group which has been allotted the land on the basis of its modified application for commercial purposes while the application of the petitioner/institution has been modified to change the purpose even on filing the application-cum-representation Annex. P/5 on its behalf.

(c) Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to challenge the allotment of the aforesaid land to respondent No. 2 by the authorities of respondent No. 1 through its resolution dated 19.5.08 Annex. R-2-6.

(d) Whether at the instance of the present petitioner, the validity of the aforesaid allotment of land in view of the existing Vyayan Niyam, 1975 could be examined by this court in the present writ petition.

(e) Whether the disputed land being adjoining land to the already allotted land to respondent No. 2 to construct the Mall, the commercial building could be allotted by the authorities of respondent No. 1 by virtue of provision of rule 27 of the Vyayan Rules, 1975 without following the other rules relating to the disposal of the land of development scheme reserved for commercial purpose or/and without following the process of NIT and auction.

Now, I proceed to answer the above mentioned questions:-

So far the question No. (a) is concerned, it is apparent from the decision of the Apex Court Annex. P/3 that according to the provision of the Adhiniyam 1973 and its rules, the master plan was prepared and sanctioned by the State according to which the disputed land is ear marked and reserved for commercial purposes and I have not found any documentary evidence on record showing that subsequent to decision of the Apex Court, the purpose of such land has been changed by the authorities of respondent No. 1 or the State Government or any other modification was carried out in the master plan by any of such authorities. So, in such premises, I am of the considered view that in the light of decision of Apex Court, in any manner, the petitioner/institution was not having any entitlement for allotment of such land to construct the community hall and, in such premises, the authorities of respondent No. 1 has not committed any error either in passing the resolution dated 24.3.06 Annex. R-3 and dated 30.10.06 Annex. R-1 annexed with the additional return. So, in such premises, it is held that even at the initial stage or after remanding the matter by the Apex Court or at any subsequent stage in pendency of the petition, the petitioner/institution was never remained to be entitled for allotment of such land.

So far the question No. (b) is concerned it is apparent from the above mentioned discussion that after remanding the matter by the Apex Court, the earlier allotment of the petitioner/institution as well as of Shri Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal of Dainik Bhaskar was canceled by the authorities of the respondent No. 1 vide Annex. P/4 and thereafter the Dainik Bhaskar Group has filed the modified application for allotment and considering such modified application vide resolution dated 24.3.06 Annex. R-3, said Dainik Bhaskar Group was allotted 20000 sq.ft. land taking into consideration that such request was made in accordance with the development scheme of such land while at any point of time since 11.12.95 the date of filing the initial application by the petitioner, the purpose of such allotment was not changed by the petitioner/institution even in the representation dated 17.4.06 Annex. P/5 no other purpose is mentioned. So, in such premises, the principle of parity is not applicable between the petitioner and the Dainik Bhaskar Group because according to the master plan such land is ear marked for commercial purpose and not for any social purpose to construct the community hall. So, in such premises it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to get the allotment of any such land on the ground of parity.

So far the question No. (c) is concerned, the disputed land according to the master plan being commercial land and as per resolution of the authorities of respondent No. 1 dated 24.3.06 Annex. R-3 decision No. 1750, the alleged 20,000 sq.ft. land was allotted to Dainik Bhaskar in accordance with such master plan and the scheme prepared under the Adhiniyam and the Niyam of 1975. The petitioner which applied for other than commercial purpose did not have locus standi to challenge the aforesaid allotment of Dainik Bhaskar. In such premises it is held that the petitioner/institution was not having any entitlement to get the commercial land for construction of the community hall and, in such premises, the allotment of such land of 6240 sq.ft. by the respondent No. 1 through resolution dated 19.5.08 Anenx.R-2-6 decision No. 1918 to the respondent No. 2 count not be canceled in this petition.

So far the question No. (d) is concerned, it is apparent fact on record that such land measuring 6240 sq. ft has been allotted by the authorities of the respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 by the above mentioned resolution dated 19.5.08 Annex. R-2-6. Pursuant to it agreement had also taken place between them and the requisite sum has also been deposited and paid by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. In such premises for the sake of the arguments if it is deemed that there is some procedural irregularity in such allotment, although the same is not apparent from the available record, even then such dispute being between the respondent No. 2 and the authorities of respondent No. 1, the petitioner/institution did not have any authority to challenge such irregularity. So, in such premises, it is held that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the allotment of the impugned land of 6240 sq.ft. to the respondent No. 2 by the authorities of respondent No. 1.

So far the question No. (e) is concerned, I would like to examine in the light of Rule 27 of Vyayan Rules, 1975. The same reads as under:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 24 to 26 the Authority may dispose of any land by sale without auction or exchange in the following cases;

(a) Where the land is to be transferred in the Government of India or the State Government.

(b) Where the plot is to be transferred is adjacent to a largest plot held previously by a person who has asked for such adjoining plot.

(c) Where consequential to an agreement for abandonment a piece of land is to sold to person whose property is to abandoned to fit the property in the Authority layout.

(d) Where the Authority laid is to be exchanged with adjoining private or Government land for the purpose of a regular layout of plots or for adjustment of the boundaries of private property the acquisition of which is proposed ''to be abandoned''.

On examining the matter in view of the aforesaid Vyayan Niyam of 1975, I find that the authorities of respondent No. 1 has not committed any procedural error in allotting the aforesaid land to the respondent No. 2 without publication of any NIT in the Newspaper and without adopting the process of auction because of the disputed land being adjoining land to the land already allotted to the respondent No. 2 to carry out the construction of the Mall and by virtue of the aforesaid Niyam 27 which provides that if the plot (land) which is the subject matter of transfer is adjacent to the larger plot held previously by the person, and he has asked for such adjoining plot then in that circumstance, the authorities of respondent No. 1 was having the authority to dispose of such adjoining land in favor of such person by sale without auction or exchange. So in view of such factual matrix the respondent No. 2 being earlier allottee of the adjacent larger land was entitled for allotment of the same without following the process of the Niyam 24 to 26 or the other foregoing Niyam of 1975. So, in such premises the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner/institution in this regard is not sustainable, therefore, it is held that the impugned allotment of the land of 6240 sq. ft to the respondent No. 2 has been carried out in accordance with the rule 27 of the Vyayan Rules of 1975, the same does not require any interference in the present petition.

Coming to consider the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner, the case law in the matter of Government of Goa Vs. A.H. Jaffar and Sons and Another, is concerned, the same was decided by the Apex Court taking into consideration the similar and identical disputed questions between the parties and such judgment of the Apex Court got finality between the parties so in that circumstance it was held that the parties are bound to follow the directions of the Apex Court. As such no different view could be taken in such matter contrary to the directions of the Apex Court. In the case at hand neither the authorities of respondent No. 1 nor the respondent No. 2 has entered in any such transaction or negotiation which could be termed to be contrary to any direction of the Apex Court. In the case at hand, it is apparent that in the case at hand the authority of respondent No. 1 had taken all necessary precaution in compliance of the directions of the Apex Court given in the judgment Annex. P/3. So, in the present scenario, this citation is not helping to the petitioner.

So far the case law in the matter of Bihar State Govt. Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. Bihar Education Service Association and others And Bihar State Government Secondary School Teachers Association Vs. Anup Mukherjee and others-2012 AIR SCW 6454 is concerned, in such case it was held that the High Court is bound to follow the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court and could not go contrary to such judgment even for the collateral purposes. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that this court is not going to take any decision contrary to the directions of the Apex Court given in the judgment Annexure. P/3. As such, in compliance of the direction of the Apex Court given in the judgment Annex. P/3, the authorities of respondent No. 1 has considered the matter and passed the resolution that such land being reserved for commercial purposes could not have been allotted to the petitioner to erect the community hall and in such premises the allotment of the land to respondent No. 2 could not be said to be contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court. So, in such premises this cited case is also not helping to the petitioner.

So far the case law in the matter of Markio Tado Vs. Takam Sorang, is concerned, in such case it was laid down that the law declared by the Apex Court is binding on all courts under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and judicial discipline requires to follow the mandate of constitution. This court did not have any dispute regarding such principle but in aforesaid discussion, it has been found that the step which has been taken by respondent No. 1 for allotment of the disputed land to respondent No. 2 is in compliance of the directions of the judgment of Supreme Court Annex. P/3. So, in such circumstances, this citation is also not helping to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity in dismissing the claim of the petitioner, with respect of allotment of the land stated in the petition, by the respondent No. 1 and its authorities. So also in allotment of some part of such land measuring 6240 sq.ft. to respondent No. 2. Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to the cost.