Back
2019 Supreme(Guj) 771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIKRAM NATH, A.J. SHASTRI, JJ.
Manilal Bhagwanbhai Patel - Appellant
Versus
State of Guajrat - Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1538, 1556 of 2019 in R/Special Civil Application No. 29726 of 2007, Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 Special Civil Application No. 7952 of 2015
Decided On : 17-10-2019
For the Appellant : Dipak R. Dave
For the Respondent: Aishwarya Gupta, A.G.P.
Headnote:
Civil Law – Letters Patent Appeals – Clause 15 – Allotment of earmarked plots for residential purpose – Public auction – Seeking quashment of impugned orders as well as consequently prays for direction upon respondent No. 3 to confirm auction proceedings in favour of appellants - original petitioner by allotting him a residential Plot – Appellants - original petitioners of respective petitions participated in auction proceedings which were organized for purpose of allotment of earmarked plots for residential purpose – As a part of capital project, area is divided into many sectors and plots in said sectors are earmarked for residential purpose, and for that, for allotment of same, public auction was held by prescribing the up-set price – Appellants - original petitioners participated in auction proceedings with a sole idea to have small area of plot, for family needs and in that context, while participating in auction proceedings, conditions stipulated have been fulfilled, and according to original petitioners, 25% price soon on highest bid being accepted subject to approval of Collector – Appellants - original petitioners that prior to this there were several instances in which no approval was declared, but even after lapse of approximately 8 months, though original petitioners were highest bidders, process was not concluded by actually allotting the plots – Surprisingly appellants - original petitioners, Collector on basis of some suspension, had cancelled the bid without any prior opportunity to the appellants - original petitioners and feeling aggrieved by the same, the original petitioners have approached the Special Secretary by way of submitting Revision Application – Held, On contrary, it has been found categorically by tCollector even upon re-examination that there is a likelihood of huge financial loss to the government and land cannot be given at a throw away price. In this order also, it has been categorically mentioned that the amount so collected be refunded without any interest – This translation version is also reflecting on page 39A which indicates that the re-examination process has been undertaken after granting full opportunity to the original petitioners – Again, said order has been examined at an appropriate higher forum but then it was found that the grievance with respect to allotment is not possible to be accepted – As a result of this, right up to the revision stage, the authorities have considered the case and found no favour in the appellants grievance – On perusal of it would clearly indicate that background of fact is altogether distinct from the case on hand, and therefore, equity is not possible to be stretched to this peculiar background of fact and as such we are of the opinion that the said judgment is of no avail to the appellants - original petitioners – Despite fact that on earlier occasion, authority has indicated to refund the amount, no steps have been taken and the amount has been found to be retained till date, as a result of which we find that on one hand, the authority is opposing the request of the appellants about the allotment of plot and on the other hand, has chosen to retain the amount over the period of time – Authority is bound to refund the amount but, on account of this circumstance with appropriate rate of interest – We would have on account of such act imposed exemplary cost but, having found that in the orders passed by authority, it was instructed to refund the amount, we refrain from imposing any heavy cost – But deem it proper to direct the authority to refund amount within a period of 6 weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order, with interest at rate of 9% from date of presentation of writ petition till realization – Letters Patent Appeals are partly allowed. (Paras 10 to 13)
ORDER :
Vikram Nath, J.
1. Both these present Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent are directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.12.2018 and since facts and contentions are almost similar, a request was made before us to deal with and dispose of present Letters Patent Appeals by common judgment and order.
2. Considering the request and in view of similarity of grievance, we are inclined to deal with and dispose of both these Letters Patent Appeals by present common judgment and order by treating Letters Patent Appeal No. 1538 of 2019, as a lead matter.
3. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1538 of 2019 is arising out of an order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 29726 of 2007 and the appellants - original petitioners have challenged decision of the respondent authorities dated 30.05.2003 as well as dated 19.02.2005 with a further request that respondent No. 3 - Collector be directed to confirm the auction in favour of appellants - original petitioners by allotting them residential Plot No. 374/1.
4. Similarly, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1556 of 2019 is arising out of a decision delivered by the learned Single Judge from the said date i.e. on 21.12.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 7952 of 2015 which petition was essentially filed for the purpose of seeking quashment of the impugned orders dated 30.05.2003 as well as dated 22.11.2004, and consequently prays for direction upon respondent No. 3 to confirm the auction proceedings in favour of appellants - original petitioner by allotting him a residential Plot No. 375/A/1.
5. The background of facts which has given rise to present Letters Patent Appeals is that the appellants - original petitioners of respective petitions have participated in the auction proceedings which were organized for the purpose of allotment of earmarked plots for residential purpose. As a part of capital project, the area of Gandhinagar is divided into many sectors like as of Chandigarh and the plots in the said sectors are earmarked for residential purpose, and for that, for allotment of same, public auction was held by prescribing the up-set price. The appellants - original petitioners participated in the auction proceedings with a sole idea to have small area of plot, consisting of 200 sq. mtrs. of land, for the family needs and in that context, while participating in auction proceedings, the conditions stipulated have been fulfilled, and according to the original petitioners, 25% price soon on the highest bid being accepted subject to the approval of Collector.
5.1. It is the case of the appellants - original petitioners that prior to this there were several instances in which no approval was declared, but even after the lapse of approximately 8 months, though the original petitioners were highest bidders, process was not concluded by actually allotting the plots. Surprisingly, according to the appellants - original petitioners, the Collector on the basis of some suspension, had cancelled the bid without any prior opportunity to the appellants - original petitioners and feeling aggrieved by the same, the original petitioners have approached the Special Secretary by way of submitting Revision Application. The Special Secretary namely the Revisional Authority has also rejected the Revision Application vide order dated 28.04.1988. As a result of this, the original petitioners had to approach this Court by way of a writ petition, which was numbered as Special Civil Application No. 6843 of 1988. After hearing, the said writ petition was allowed by this Court and the orders of the Collector as well as the Special Secretary, referred to above, came to be quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for taking a fresh decision after affording reasonable opportunity to the appellants - original petitioners preferably within a period of three months.
5.2. It is the case of the appellants - original
