Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
Paramjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of J&K and Others – Respondents
O.W.P. Nos. 1054 of 2013, 1483 of 2010, I.A. Nos. 1459 of 2013, 1978 of 2010
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Jammu Development Authority - Auction Notice - Allotment of vacant plots of land - Bidder - Agreement/lease deed - Possession - Seeking quashment of impugned order, issued by respondent No. 3, auction notice besides praying for a direction to official respondents to execute lease deed in respect of plot with petitioner and to handover possession of same to him while accepting balance payment of plot - Petitioner herein is stated to have participated in auction process (supra) offering an amount for plot being highest bidder - An amount is stated to have been deposited, as earnest money as also an amount, respectively in response to letter, issued by respondent No. 2 herein - Petitioner is stated to have deposited 50% of the total bid price of the plot and that the balance amount was to be deposited within six months and in the event of failure, petitioner had to pay 18% interest on the delayed payment.
Finding of the Court:
The original cancellation letter has been received back by respondents un-served to petitioner with endorsement on its envelop addressee not known. Said letter postal envelope as also A/D in original is part of record produced by respondents pertaining to record of file respondent No. 4 and are attached - Respondent No. 4 would reveal that upon re-auctioning of plot No. 244 (supra), allotment letter has been issued by the official respondents in favour of respondent No. 4, without there being any document/instrument executed with respondent No. 4 for transferring interest thereof, said plot in favour of respondent No. 4 or else handing over of possession of it to respondent No. 4, overlooking fact that this Court in terms of order had directed maintenance of status quo in respect of plot in question manifestly suggesting that respondents on one hand in breach and violation of rights of petitioner issued cancellation letter and on other hand proceeded with process of re-auctioning of plot in question while issuing letter of allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 in presence of order of status-quo passed by this court which cannot be countenanced in law - Re-auctioning of plot by the official respondents and process undertaken thereof inasmuch as consequential allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4 having admittedly originated from illegal and arbitrary exercise of power as noticed in preceding paras qua petitioner in law, cannot sustain.
Result: Petitions allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant petitions raise akin and analogues issues, as such, are disposed of together.
2. The factual matrix of the matter as detailed out in the petitions (supra) would reveal that Jammu Development Authority (for short ‘JDA’) issued Auction Notice on 12.04.1999, inviting applications therein for auction allotment of various vacant plots of land in Trikuta Nagar, Housing Colony, including Plot No. 244 measuring 30’ x 60’ (1800 Sfts) (for short the plot) with a minimum reserve price for the said plot at Rs. 4.67 Lacs.
3. The petitioner herein is stated to have participated in the auction process (supra) offering an amount of Rs. 8.30 Lacs for the plot being highest bidder. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is stated to have been deposited on 03.06.1999, as earnest money as also an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- on 23.06.1999, respectively in response to the letter dated 26.05.1999, issued by respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner is stated to have deposited 50% of the total bid price of the plot and that the balance amount of Rs. 4.15 Lacs was to be deposited within six months and in the event of failure, the petitioner had to pay 18% interest on the delayed payment.
4. It is being stated that on 02.05.2001, the respondents asked the petitioner that a proper agreement/lease deed has been executed and the petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 5,36,164/- in the office of the respondents within a specific period of 21 days, failing which it will be presumed that he is not interested to liquidate the said amount and the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of Land Revenue.
5. It is being next stated that all the relevant documents of the petitioner were received by the official respondents and a lease deed was prepared by them as well, however, the respondents 2 and 3 avoided the execution of the lease deed on one pretext or the other, despite being approached by the petitioner, so much so, avoided handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner.
6. It is further stated that the petitioner thereafter was never asked by the official respondents to come for execution of the lease deed or taking over of the possession of the plot despite the fact that the petitioner offered the balance payment to the respondents 2 and 3 which is stated to have been avoided by the official respondents on one pretext or the other.
7. It is being next stated by the petitioner that the respondents again issued an auction notice dated 08.12.2010 for various plots of land in various sectors of Trikuta Nagar, Housing Colony including Plot No. 244, fixing the date of auction on 20.12.2010. Upon coming to know about the said auction notice, it is being stated that the petitioner filed writ petition being OWP No. 1483 of 2010 before this Court (accompanying petition) and challenged the auction notice in question. Upon consideration of the said petition by this Court, it is stated that an order of status quo was passed on 21.12.2010 in respect of the plot in question.
8. It is being further stated that upon filing of the objections to OWP No. 1483/2010 (supra) by the respondents, it was averred that the allotment of the plot for which the petitioner was highest bidder stands cancelled vide Letter No. JDA/TN/244/1/272 dated 02.08.2001 and the amount deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited pursuant to auction notice dated 08.12.2010 and that upon re-auction of the plot, Rs. 38 Lacs have been received for the said plot.
9. It is being next stated that the cancellation letter dated 02.08.2001 mentioned in the objections by the respondents filed to OWP No. 1483/2010 (supra) was neither conveyed to the petitioner nor placed before the Court along with the objections by the respondents and that during the pendency of the petition (supra) one Vivek Mahajan (respondent No. 4 herein) filed an application for impleadment as party respondent and was subsequently, impleaded thereto as party respondent No. 4 vide order dated 10.03.2014
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
