The court reinforced that conditions outside the auction terms cannot impose additional obligations and affirmed the principle of promissory estoppel.

Judgment :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. These batch of special appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 08.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3801/1998 (Bhai Shankar Lal Jawan Mal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions were allowed. Since all these appeals involve identical facts and issues, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment for thse sake of convenience and clarity. The facts of D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 326/2010 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhai Shankar Lal Jawan Mal) are being treated as the lead case for reference.

2. The D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 326/2010 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Bhai Shankar Lal Jawan Mal) has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the order dtd.8.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent be ordered to be dismissed.

Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the appellants.”

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present batch of appeals are that the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur issued an advertisement dated 18.09.1995 inviting bids for auction of plots situated in the Market Yard, Sumerpur, on lease for a period of 99 years. The respondent–writ petitioner participated in the auction held on 29.09.1995 after depositing earnest money of Rs. 10,000/-, and being the highest bidder, was allotted a shop/plot. The bid was approved by the Director, Agriculture Marketing, subject to the condition that the allottees shall furnish an undertaking to execute the lease deed in accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the State Government and to get the same registered. In compliance, the respondent submitted the undertaking, the possession of the plot was handed over, and construction was made thereon.

3.1. Subsequently, vide communication dated 21.07.1998, the respondent was directed to execute the lease deed in the proforma approved by the State Government, which incorporated a new condition for payment of annual lease money equivalent to 5% of the market value of the plot at the time of allotment, with a further condition for increase of such lease money by 25% after every fifteen years. Aggrieved by the imposition of this additional monetary obligation, the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the said communication.

3.2. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the record and rival submissions, found that the terms and conditions of the auction notice dated 18.09.1995 issued by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sumerpur, did not contain any stipulation requiring payment of annual lease money. It was held that the auction conditions were exhaustive and that no such recurring liability was contemplated at the time of auction. The subsequent communication dated 21.07.1998, directing execution of lease deeds as per the proforma approved by the State Government and incorporating a condition for payment of annual lease rent at 5% of the market value with a 25% enhancement every fifteen years, was held to be a unilateral imposition of additional pecuniary liability beyond the terms originally notified. The Court observed that the allottees, having already acted upon the auction terms and completed construction on the allotted plots, could not be compelled to bear new financial burdens, and the principle of promissory estoppel stood attracted.

3.3. Further, relying upon Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882, the learned