Back
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
Jammu Development Authority - Appellant
Vs.
S. Paramjeet Singh & Ors. - Respondent
LPA No. 58 of 2022
Decided On : 02-12-2022
Cancellation of Allotment - Land Dispute - Jammu Development Authority Act - Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the cancellation of the allotment of a plot in Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu, and subsequent re-allotment to another party. The appellant claimed that he was not informed about the balance payment and that the cancellation was done without following the proper procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had deposited 50% of the premium within the stipulated period and that the subsequent communications from the Jammu Development Authority mentioned the wrong address for the appellant, leading to his lack of knowledge about the developments regarding the plot. The court also noted that the appellant was ready to make the balance payment and had requested the authority not to go for re-auction, but his request was not considered.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had received the letters or notices asking him to deposit the balance bid amount and whether the cancellation and re-allotment were done following the proper procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not informed about the developments due to the wrong address mentioned in the communications from the Jammu Development Authority. It also emphasized that the appellant should have been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the re-auction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
JUDGEMENT/ORDER :
Tashi Rabstan, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in OWP No. 1054/2013 and OWP No. 1483/2010, whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions passed the following order/directions:
ii. quashed Auction Notice dated 08.12.2010.
iii. quashed letter of allotment, bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010 issued in favour of one Mr. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4, allotting him the plot-in-question.
iv. official writ respondents were also commanded to formally allot Plot No. 244, measuring 30' x 60' situated in Sector No. 1, Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony, Jammu in favour of writ petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival contentions, perused the appeal file as well as the record produced by the learned counsel representing the Jammu Development Authority.
3. Admittedly, the plot-in-question was allotted to the writ petitioner after he was found to be the highest bidder pursuant to Auction Notice dated 12.04.1999, offering an amount of Rs. 8,30,000/-. He is stated to have deposited 50% of the total bid price within the stipulated period and the balance amount of Rs. 4.15 lacs was to be deposited within next six months, failing which he had to pay 18% interest on the delayed payment.
4. The stand of writ respondents is that since the writ petitioner had failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated period and even not responded to several letters/notices issued by the JDA, the writ respondents had no option but to cancel the allotment vide cancellation letter No. JDA/TN/244/1/272, dated 02.08.2001 and re-auction the said plot vide notice dated 08.12.2010, which ultimately came to be re-allotted to one Mr. Vivek Mahajan, i.e., writ respondent No. 4 vide letter of allotment, bearing No. JDA/TN/5261-66, dated 22.12.2010.
5. However, the stand of writ petitioner is that he was never asked by the official writ respondents to come for execution of the lease deed or taking over the possession of the plot-in-question nor he ever received letters or notices from the office of JDA asking him to deposit the balance bid amount, rather he offered the balance payment to writ respondents 2 & 3, but the same was avoided by them on one or the other pretext. His further stand is that the cancellation letter was issued at his back without providing him an opportunity of being heard and without following the established procedure.
6. Now, for deciding the controversy, the moot question to be considered is: whether the writ petitioner had ever received the letters or notices issued by the office of JDA asking him to deposit the balance bid amount.
7. A perusal of the application form for allotment of plot-in-question reveals that the writ petitioner Paramjeet Singh while applying for the plot-in-question at Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony had specifically mentioned his postal address as "Trikuta Nagar Ext. 3/574,".
8. When the writ petitioner was found to be the highest bidder, he was informed by the Secretary, JDA, Jammu to deposit 50% of the premium within 30 days. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said communication hereunder:
Sh. Paramjit Singh,
S/o Sh. Amrik Singh,
R/o 3/574, Trikuta Nagar Extn.,
Jammu.
Sub: Allotment of Plot in Trikuta Nagar Colony, Jammu.
Sir/Madam,
We are pleased to offer you plot No. 244 in Sector No.1 measuring 30' x 60' in Trikuta Nagar Housing Colony Jammu on the basis of highest bid offered by you at a premium of Rs. 8,30,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs Thirty Thousa
AI
The principle of natural justice, which requires affording a reasonable opportunity to present one's case, was central to the court's decision.
Concept of doctrine of principles of natural justice-Audi Alteram Partem and its application in judicial, quasi judicial and administrative system is not new. It no doubt is a procedural requirement,....
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
Cancellation of allotment due to payment defaults by the winning bidder in a public auction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay and inaction on the part of the petitioner can disentitle them from the relief sought, especially when no right had accrued in their fav....
The court emphasized the need for public officials to exercise their powers with sensitivity to the facts and circumstances of a given case and not with pre-conceived opinions, and highlighted the im....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of an allotment without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard constitutes a violation of the principles ....
The automatic cancellation of government land allotment orders occurs when premium is not deposited within the stipulated time, irrespective of communication issues regarding the order.
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
