Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHILDREN’S ACADEMY, JAIPUR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 284 JT 1995 (8) 346
1995 SCALE (6)424
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3