Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Suresh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11760 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5170 of 2018)
Decided On : 03-12-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Public auction of land should be given adequate publicity and a reasonable reserve price should be fixed.
Headnote:Property law – Public auction of Nagar Palika plot – Nagar Palika holding re-auction – High court ordering re-auction subject to result of writ petition filed by appellant – During pendency Nagar Palika concluding the auction and sale to respondent no. 5 – Executing sale deed – Not affecting rights of appellant, more so because the respondent No.5, being part to the writ petition, was also aware of the High Court order – Nagar Palika not giving adequate publicity to re-auction as seen by only two bidders for a tremendously potential plot – looking to the potential of the plot Nagar Palika fixing a very low reserve price – Held, the land in question deserves to be reauctioned afresh. (Para 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The dispute relates to a plot of land owned by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad-respondent No. 1 herein.
The Parishad 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/-.
The Parishad being of the view that the offers received did not represent the real market price decided to reauction the same.
The Parishad, therefore, issued a fresh advertisement for allotment of land. The appellant felt aggrieved with the Parishad's decision to reauction the land in question and issuance of fresh advertisement and filed Writ Petition.
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 deposited a sum of Rs.1.15 crores out of the total amount of Rs.2.87 crores.
The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition essentially on the ground that since he was not the bidder in the reauction 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.
Finding of the Court:
The land in question deserves to be reauctioned afresh.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
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 petition filed by the appellant herein.
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 on 14th 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.
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 Parishad-respondent 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 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 reauction 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 reauction 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 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 reauction 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 reauction of the land.
13. Heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Kulshrestha, 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.1Parishad
