The cancellation of allotment and eviction order was premature as the action could have only been initiated after the decision of the Infrastructure Development Committee fixing the price of the land.

Headnote:
PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1964 - SECTION 5 - ALLOTMENT OF LAND - CANCELLATION OF ALLOTMENT - PREMATURE ACTION - ESTOPPEL - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - JURISDICTION OF ESTATE OFFICER - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1964 - SECTION 4(1) - SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS - DISPUTE OF SERIOUS FACTS AND LAW - NOTICE OF CANCELLATION - PRICE FIXATION BY INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE - COMMUNICATION TO ALLOTTEE - TRESPASSER - JURISDICTION OF ESTATE OFFICER - PREMATURE ACTION.
Fact of the Case:

RIICO allotted land to the petitioner company at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges, whichever is higher. The petitioner was required to deposit 25% development charges amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. The petitioner had undertaken to accept the land and a registered lease-deed was entered into. The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of allotment and eviction from the land issued by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1964.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the action taken against the petitioner on the basis of the cancellation order dated 1.9.1990 was premature as the action could have only been initiated after May 1991 as per the resolution of fixing of the price vide Annexure-10 i.e. the decision of the Infrastructure Development Committee. The court also held that the respondent is at liberty to recover the amount as per the decision of the Infrastructure Committee from the petitioner in accordance with law which amount the petitioner is bound to pay as per its own undertaking vide Annexure-2.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of allotment and eviction order was premature? 2. Whether the petitioner was estopped from challenging the cancellation of allotment? 3. Whether the arbitration clause in the lease agreement barred the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer? 4. Whether the Estate Officer had jurisdiction to initiate summary proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 in a case involving dispute of serious facts and law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation of allotment and eviction order was premature as the action could have only been initiated after May 1991 as per the resolution of fixing of the price vide Annexure-10 i.e. the decision of the Infrastructure Development Committee. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not estopped from challenging the cancellation of allotment as the cancellation order was premature and the petitioner had not violated any terms of the lease agreement. 3. The court held that the arbitration clause in the lease agreement did not bar the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer as the dispute was not related to the terms of the lease agreement but to the cancellation of allotment. 4. The court held that the Estate Officer did not have jurisdiction to initiate summary proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 in a case involving dispute of serious facts and law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of cancellation of allotment and eviction. However, the court clarified that the respondent is at liberty to recover the amount as per the decision of the Infrastructure Committee from the petitioner in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT

1. :- The petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.6.1993 (Annexure-7) passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1964 and order dated 31st May 1993 (Annexure-14), the appellate order passed against the order Annexure-7, with a further prayer that the respondents be directed not to evict the petitioner company from the land in dispute.

2. The facts relating to the case are that the Management of RIICO had decided to offer a land measuring 56 Bighas or 1.40 lakhs sq. meters situated on the National Highway No.11 between Reengus to Sikar at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. meter or cost of acquisition plus 10% administrative charges, whichever is higher. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% development charges amounting to Rs. 70,000/- by way of demand draft. A copy of such letter dated 30.1.1981 is attached as Annexure R-1 with the written statement. The petitioner had undertaken to accept the land vide Annexure-R/2. Vide order Annexure R/3 dated 31.1.1981 the allotment was made for establishment of Synthetic Yarn Project on the terms and conditions as mentioned in Annexure R/3 to the effect that the lease rent was fixed at Rs. 37.50/- per yea for every 4000 sq. meter. The development charges were fixed. It was further mentioned in Annexure R/3 that the petitioner was duty bound to deposit the lease rent as well as the development charges and also have to execute the lease-deed and the petitioner shall have to pay the cost of execution plus 10% administrative charges as be decided by the Infrastructure Committee. A condition was stipulated, if the rent of development charges is not deposited from the date of receipt of the order or extended time, the allotment shall stand cancelled. Possession was taken on 31.1.1981 itself. The land acquisition proceedings were started and the compensation was paid to the khatedars. It was felt by the company that the compensation of the land, as has been fixed by the Collector, was excessive and, therefore, it was decided to file the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the company and ultimately the reference was also filed. According to the respondents, the department had to pay and deposit the amount of Rs. 23,65,967.94 towards the compensation of land and thus, a meeting was held to recover the price of the land from the petitioner. A notice was issued by the respondents on 1.9.1990 to the effect that the outstanding amount has not been deposited as per allotment letter and, therefore, the allotted land in the name of the company was cancelled and re-determined. Copy of such notice dated 1.9.1990 is attached as Annexure R/12. In the mean time the petitioner had filed a writ petition in the High Court and proceedings were stayed vide order dated 14.2.1990 by the High Court and the petitioner had informed the RIICO about the fact of filing of the writ petition. Vide order dated 23.1.1991, the Governor had also appointed the Estate Officers, one Gurdayal Singh Sandhu, IAS and Ashutosh Gupta, RAS, copy of which is attached as Annexure R/17 under the Public Premises Act.

3. With the above said facts as mentioned in the written statement, ultimately a notice was issued by the Estate Officer to the petitioner for eviction from the land in question which is being challenged.

4. The petitioner submits that he was required to pay only Rs. 2/- per sq. meter with an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- which deposit had been made and a registered lease-deed had been entered into on 18.2.1981 vide Annexure-1 and thus it is the term of the lease-deed which will govern the parties. It is further submitted that because of the reason that it was a joint venture, therefore, it was decided to oppose the amount of compensation as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that the respondents had fixed the economic rent to be Rs. 37.50/- per yea for 4000 sq.meter which was subject to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1527

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHJ.C.Verma, J.Jaipur Polyspin Limited - AppellantVersusRajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & ors. - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4480 of 1993.Decided On : 10-12-1999

The cancellation of allotment and eviction order was premature as the action could have only been initiated after the decision of the Infrastructure Development Committee fixing the price of the land.

Judicial Analysis

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Jaipur Polyspin Limited - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation & ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4480 of 1993.
Decided On : 10-12-1999