Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11760 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5170 of 2018)
Suresh Chandra ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
[
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
& Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
in Writ Petition No. 6198(M/B) of 2012 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.03
17:00:34 IST
Reason:
petition filed by the appellant herein.
1
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this
appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is
necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief
hereinbelow.
4. While issuing notice of this special leave to
appeal on 06.03.2018, this Court passed the
following order:
“Application for exemption from filing
official translation is allowed.
Issue notice on the limited question as
to why the property in question admeasuring
639 sq.metres land which was auctioned by
Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for
which market price as of today is quite high,
be not put to auction sale again, returnable
th
on 14 March, 2018.
Status quo as of today in respect of the
property in question shall be maintained.
Petitioner is permitted to serve the
respondents by way of dasti service within a
week.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the
respondents have filed their response/counter
affidavits.
2
6. In short, the dispute relates to a plot of land
bearing plot No. 4B/CP03 (Sector 4B) situated at
Sikandara Yojna, Agra having total area measuring
639.75 Sq. meter owned by U.P. Avas Vikas
Parishadrespondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter
referred to as “the Parishad”).
7. On 12.08.2010, the Parishad in daily Hindi
News Papers “Dainik Jagaran” and "Amar Ujala”
issued an advertisement inviting applications from
interested parties for allotment of the
aforementioned land. The reserved rate of the plot
was fixed at Rs.17,248/ per sq. mt. The parties
were to deposit a token money of Rs.11,03,500/.
8. It is the case of the appellant that he was one
of the bidders, who quoted the rate of the plot at
Rs.18050/ per sq. meter which was the highest.
The Parishad, however, was of the view that the
offers received did not represent the real market
3
price and, therefore, it decided to reauction the
same.
9. The Parishad, therefore, issued a fresh
advertisement for allotment of land. The appellant
felt aggrieved with the Parishad's decision to re
auction the land in question and issuance of fresh
advertisement and filed Writ Petition No.6198/2012
in the High Court at Allahabad. The High Court, by
interim order dated 30.07.2012, directed that re
auction may be held but it will be subject to the
final outcome of the writ petition.
10. In reauction, respondent No. 5 submitted his
bid for Rs.28,000/ per Sq. Meter as against the
reserve price of Rs.27,104/ fixed by the Parishad.
The appellant in order to show his bona fide interest
offered to purchase the land for Rs.40,000/ per Sq.
Meter and later modified his offer at Rs.45,000/
per Sq. Meter in the Court. The appellant also
4
deposited a sum of Rs.1.15 crores out of the total
amount of Rs.2.87 crores.
11. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed
the appellant's writ petition essentially on the
ground that since he was not the bidder in the re
auction proceedings, he cannot be heard in the
matter and Secondly; since during the pendency of
the writ petition, the Parishad had executed the sale
deed of the land in favour of respondent No.5 and
hence nothing now survives in the matter.
12. The appellant(writ petitioner) felt aggrieved and
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this
Court. As mentioned above, notice was issued to
examine only one limited issue in relation to re
auction of the land.
13. Heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Kulshrestha,
5
learned senior counsel, Mr. Vishwajit Singh and Mr.
Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to dispose of the appeal as mentioned
hereinbelow.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 Parishad
at the outset submitted that the Parishad has no
objection if the reauction of the plot of the land in
question is done because in reauction proceedings,
the Parishad is bound to get more sale price as
against the price quoted by the bidders in the
earlier two auctions.
16. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5,
however, defended the impugned order and
contended that since the sale has already been
concluded in his favour and sale deed has also been
executed, the appeal deserves dismissal.
6
17. We are of the considered opinion that in order
to do complete justice between the parties in
relation to subject matter of the proceedings in
question and to balance the equities and further
having regard to all the facts and circumstances of
the case, the fresh auction of the land in question
can be ordered. It is also necessary for the following
reasons.
nd
18. First, the 2 reauction proceedings
conducted by the Parishad were made subject to
final outcome of the writ petition by order dated
30.07.2012 passed by the High Court in the
appellant’s writ petition and, therefore, even if
Parishad had proceeded to finalize the sale of the
land in question in favour of respondent No.5, it did
not affect any of the rights of the appellant while
prosecuting the writ petition. It was more so
because the respondent No.5 was also aware of the
7
order dated 30.07.2012, he being part to the writ
petition.
19. Second, the Parishad did not give adequate
publicity for sale of the land in question while
conducting two auctions because we find that only
two bidders could participate in the auctions.
20. In our view, the Parishad, keeping in view, the
value and the potential of the land, should have
given adequate publicity in the leading national
English, Hindi newspapers having circulation all
over the country including any other prescribed
mode of publication with a sole object to attract
participation of more and more persons in the
auction proceedings.
21. Third, the Parishad committed an error in
fixing reserve price of the land at a very less
amount. The Parishad should have seen that the
land has a tremendous potential in commercial
8
market as is clear from the fact that both the
bidders had volunteered to pay much higher price
as against their original bid amount.
22. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, we
are of the view that the land in question deserves to
be reauctioned afresh.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned
order is set aside. The Parishad is directed to re
auction the land in question by giving wide publicity
in various leading national newspapers having
circulation all over India in bold letters including
giving publicity in local daily newspapers also in the
States with a view to enable more and more persons
to participate in the auction for allotment of the said
land.
24. The Parishad is also directed to get the reserve
price fixed after consulting experts in the subject.
9
25. The Parishad is also directed to provide
adequate conditions so that the auction process
becomes transparent and at the same time the
bidders are able to submit their bids properly.
26. The Parishad is also directed to refund the
entire money to the appellant and the respondent
No. 5, which they had deposited for purchase of the
land in question in auctions with interest payable at
the rate of 6% p.a..
27. The State will issue a necessary certificate in
favour of respondent No.5 to enable him to claim
refund of stamp duty amount from the State which
he has paid on the sale deed executed by the
Parishad in his favour in relation to the land in
question. Since this Court has directed re
auctioning of the land, the sale deed has now
become void. Respondent No.5 is, therefore, entitled
to claim refund of entire stamp duty amount paid
10
by him on the sale deed for its
execution/registration.
28. The appellant and respondent No. 5 will be
free to participate in the auction proceedings as a
fresh bidder along with others. However, they will
not be entitled to claim any kind of benefit in re
auction proceedings on the ground that they had
earlier participated in the auction proceedings.
29. The Parishad would ensure that the auction
proceedings are conducted in fair and transparent
manner and fetch maximum price of the land.
30. Let the fresh auction proceedings be completed
within 6 months from the date of this order.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
11