Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PRIVATE LTD — Appellant
Vs.
RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR — Respondent
Civil Writs No. 9301 of 2018, 22425 of 2017
Decided on : 16-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
Sudesh Bansal, Hans Kumar Sharma, Varun Khandelwal, Virendra Lodha, Jai Lodha, Adv.
Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited Disposal of the Land Rules, 1979 applies only when a cancelled plot is taken over possession by RIICO under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1964.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED DISPOSAL OF THE LAND RULES, 1979 - Rule 24(3) and 24(4) - Interpretation and Application - Re-allotment of Cancelled Industrial Plot - Conditions and Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., sought re-allotment of an industrial plot (Plot No.F-28(N) at Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur) that was earlier cancelled and possession was taken over by RIICO. The petitioner claimed entitlement to re-allotment under Rule 24(4) of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited Disposal of the Land Rules, 1979 (Rules of 1979).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 would not apply in the present case as possession of the plot was not taken over by RIICO under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1964. The court also found that the petitioner had not raised the argument of re-allotment under Rule 24(4) in previous litigation related to the same plot, and therefore, it was deemed to have been abandoned.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 applies to the present case where possession of the plot was not taken over by RIICO under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1964? 2. Whether the petitioner can raise the argument of re-allotment under Rule 24(4) in the present proceedings when it was not raised in previous litigation related to the same plot?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 applies only when a cancelled plot is taken over possession by RIICO under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorized occupants) Act, 1964. In the present case, possession of the plot was not taken over by RIICO under the said Act, therefore, Rule 24(4) does not apply. 2. The petitioner had the opportunity to raise the argument of re-allotment under Rule 24(4) in previous litigation related to the same plot, but it failed to do so. Therefore, the argument is deemed to have been abandoned and cannot be raised in the present proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking re-allotment of the plot under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979. However, the court directed RIICO to restore possession of the plot to the petitioner and take a decision on the petitioner's claim for re-allotment under Rule 24(4) in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules of 1979.
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
The matter comes up on IA No.31972/2018 filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacating the interim order passed by this Court on 03/05/2018.
2. This Court, taking into consideration that the arguments advanced on the IA are akin to the arguments which may be advanced for admission of the writ petitions, has heard the respective counsels for final disposal of both cases at this stage.
3. Vide order dated 03/05/2018, this Court noted submission of the petitioner-M/s Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. that he was entitled to be considered for re-allotment of Plot No.F-28(N) at Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur from which the petitioner was earlier dispossessed. Accordingly, the Court restrained the respondents from putting the plot to auction.
4. The respondents have filed reply and alongwith reply, they have placed on record the orders in previous litigation which were initiated before this Court. It appears that earlier, the petitioners filed one writ petition No.1909/2015 challenging the order passed by the RIICO cancelling the allotment which was dismissed on 05/05/2016.
5. A look at the said judgment shows that an argument was advanced at that stage by the petitioner that as the plot was in his possession, Rule 24(3) of the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited Disposal of the Land Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred as the Rules, 1979) should be made applicable which provides for policy of restoration of allotment of cancelled plot. Arguments were also put up that similarly situated three other companies had been granted the benefit of the amended rules and possession was restored. The said argument was not accepted by this Court and it was noted as under:-
"Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the defaulter to say that he may be treated in the same manner as another defaulter has been treated. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., as the name suggests, has to achieve the sole objective of industrial growth in the State and has to provide impetuous to industrial activity. As Shri Garg has stated, the units names of which have been suggested by Shri Bansal to invoke equality and equity have started production, their case is on different footing.
It is a travesty that even after lapse of twenty eight years of allotment, petitioner company has not constructed the building over the plot, what to say of production. Therefore, the respondents were well within their rights to infer that the petitioner company only intend to usurp the plot and not to carry on industrial activity."
6. Db Special Appeal (Writ) No.1206/2015 was preferred wherein taking note of the submissions, as per Rule 24(3) of the Rules, 1979, the Division Bench upheld the order passed by the Single Judge.
7. It is apparent that after dismissal of the special appeal on 05/05/2016, the petitioner handed over possession of the plot on 10th August, 2016 and after handing over the plot, the petitioner is again claiming possession of the cancelled plot in terms of Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 and the present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider and re-allot the plot on preferential basis under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of 1979. Rule 24(3) and 24(4) of the Rules of 1979 reads as under:-
24(3) Policy of Restoration of allotment of cancelled plot :
1. Restoration of allotment of cancelled plot can be considered by the Corporation depending upon the merit of each case, subject to fulfillment of the following criteria/conditions:-
i. Possession of the cancelled plot is lying with the party (applicant), and/or;
ii. Possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation, and refundable amount consequent upon cancellation of allotment of plot is not paid, and/or;
iii. Possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation and cheque of refundable amount sent to the p
