SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1352

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Ayaz Educational Society – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12218/2020
Decided On : 04-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Alankrita Sharma & Mr. M.S. Rajpurohit, Advocate, for the Petitioner
Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG assisted by Ms. Archana and Mr. Yashodhar Pandey) Mr. Vimal Chand Choudhary, Advocate, for the Respondent

Cancellation of allotment without following the principles of natural justice is impermissible.

Headnote:

Cancellation of Allotment - Educational Society - Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 - Rules of 1974 - Bye-laws, 2017

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an educational society, was allotted a plot for institutional purpose. The allotment was cancelled due to failure to pay the premium amount and for raising construction without permission. The petitioner faced obstruction in construction and extended the construction period levying a penalty, but the building plan approval was not granted. The State Government cancelled the allotment without issuing a show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. The UIT cancelled the allotment in compliance with the State Government's order without following the principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allotment cancellation was done without following the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the respondents for a fresh decision on the show cause notice after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Cancellation of Allotment, Breach of Terms and Conditions, Principles of Natural Justice

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of allotment without following the principles of natural justice is impermissible. The respondents must afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse action.

Final Decision: The orders cancelling the allotment were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondents for a fresh decision on the show cause notice after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed by an educational society assailing the legality and validity of the orders dated 9.7.2020 and 23.9.2020 passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 respectively cancelling the allotment of the subject plot made in its favour with a further prayer to restore its possession and approve the building plan.

2. The facts in brief as revealed from the memo of writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and was allotted the plot no.S-2, Sector-A, Shri Rama Krishnapuram Scheme, Kota admeasuring 3000 sq. meters for institutional purpose by the respondent no.3, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short-'UIT') vide allotment letter dated 25.11.2002 under the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Lands) Rules, 1974 (for brevity-'the Rules of 1974'). The allotment was made at a premium amount of Rs.1000 per sq. meters. The allotment came to be cancelled by the UIT vide its order dated 27.12.2004 on account of the petitioner's failure to pay the premium amount. On a request by the petitioner to re-consider the decision of cancellation, the State Government, vide its letter dated 29.6.2012, restored allotment of 2000 sq. mtrs instead of 3000 sq. mtrs initially allotted at the same rate along with penalty and interest. Upon payment of the due amount, a lease deed dated 15.7.2013 was executed in petitioner's favour and was registered on 17.7.2013. In pursuance of the letter dated 27.9.2013 issued by the UIT, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner-society started constructing boundary wall, obstruction was raised by the local residents, a part of the boundary wall was demolished and the respondent no.3, UIT was requested by the local residents and political leaders to cancel the allotment made in its favour. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner could not start construction work. However, it submitted an application dated 9.4.2018 along with copies of the building plan in prescribed proforma to the respondent no.3 seeking approval and permission to raise construction. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the UIT extended the period for raising construction levying a penalty of Rs.2,75,596/- under the Rules of 1974 which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 29.6.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 27.8.2018 requested for modification in the building plan qua setback area in view of advent of Unified Building Bye-laws, 2017 (for short-'Bye-laws, 2017') which was rejected by the UIT vide its letter dated 10.1.2019. When, for long, no action was taken by the respondent no.3 on petitioner's application for approval of the building plan, it requested the respondent no.3 vide its letters dated 5.9.2019, 24.9.2019 and 7.10.2019 to approve the same. The petitioner was directed by the UIT vide its letter dated 3.10.2019 to submit the building plan in accordance with the construction status at the plot for, as per the Junior Engineer's report, the construction has already started. The petitioner in response thereof, submitted the building plan as per the site position vide its letter dated 21.10.2019 with a request to approve the same. However, it received a show cause notice dated 24.8.2020 on 12.9.2020 dispatched by the respondent no.3 on 9.9.2020 wherein, four allegations were imputed against it. The petitioner submitted its reply on 14.9.2020. On receipt of a copy of a caveat application from the learned counsel for respondent no.3 on 3.10.2020, the petitioner came to know of the two orders dated 23.9.2020 passed by the UIT, Kota and dated 9.7.2020 passed by the State Government and when the petitioner visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 5.10.2020, it was handed over copies of the orders dated 23.9.2020 and 9.7.2020. It is submitted that the order dated 9.7.2020, whereby, the State Government

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top