The court upheld the provisions of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982, and the applicable interest rates under the Raj. Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974, in determining the JDA's obligation to refund the auction bid amount and the interest rate to be applied.

ORDER

1. Application for early listing is allowed.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-JDA challenging the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur whereby the reference application filed by the respondent-auction purchaser was allowed and the petitioner-JDA was directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- to the respondent-auction purchaser along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of depositing the said amount till the date of order i.e. 16.09.2019.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-JDA issued a notice for auctioning the plots of land at Farm Houses in Taru Vihar Farm Yojna, Ballupura, Jaisinghpura Khor, which was published in the daily newspaper on 19.01.2006. The respondent-auction purchaser participated for plot No.76 in the said auction held on 23.01.2006. The respondent-auction purchaser being the highest bidder for the said plot No.76, its sale was confirmed in his favour and he deposited the amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- with the JDA and for the remaining amount a demand letter was issued by the petitioner-JDA requiring the respondent-auction purchaser to deposit the remaining amount within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the demand letter, which according to the petitioner-JDA, the respondent-auction purchaser failed to deposit within the stipulated period of time. However, according to the respondent-auction purchaser, when the possession of the plot in dispute was not handed over by the JDA to him, he approached the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur by filing a reference application under Section 83(8)(A) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the material before it, passed the order dated 16.09.2019 directing the JDA to make the payment along with interest, as observed above. Hence, being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-JDA challenging the order dated 16.09.2019.

4. Counsel for the petitioner-JDA submitted that the order passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal is against the facts and law involved in this matter and further submitted that the tribunal has committed illegality in giving direction to the petitioner-JDA to refund the amount to the respondent-auction purchaser along with the interest @ 12% per annum.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. The Appellate Tribunal, JDA Jaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.955/2010 decided on 06.04.2010), has held as under:-

'Instant petition has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), assailing the order dt.12/08/2009 whereby the JDA Appellate Tribunal has directed the JDA to refund the amount of auction bid deposited by respondents-2 to 4. alongwith interest @ 12% on the premise that despite auction purchasers having deposited total bid amount the authority (JDA) was unable to hand over vacant & peaceful possession of the property in question.

The NIT was issued by petitioner JDA on 27/01/2006 for auction of certain farm houses in which respondents-2 to 4 had also participated and being highest bidder, their bid was accepted and total bid amount indisputably was deposited by them on 08/02/2006, details whereof have been referred to by respondents in para no.1 of their Reference application filed before the Tribunal.

After the total bid amount in terms of the NIT was deposited by respondents, it was obviously expected from the authority, in whom the people still have a faith that the vacant & peaceful possession of the property in auction will be handed over to its purchasers. But it appears that one Vasudev Singhi filed revenue suit and in appeal preferred before revenue appellate authority, interim stay order was granted on 04/02/2006 and it was held that the land in dispute belonged to Bhonri Devi - on account of which, res