Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Manish Khare v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No,12099 of 2020 (J); Decided on 10.9.2020.
Akash Chaudhary for petitioner; Jubin Prasad Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State; Siddharth Sharma for respondents No.2 and 3.
Headnote:
Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampattiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 (M.P.) -- Rr. 6 (viii) and 4 -- M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- S. 86 r/w. S. 58 -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 12 and 226 -- respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority is formation of Statute regulating mangement and lease of properties -- comes within purview of State -- JDA put plots for auction -- minimum price concluded contrary to provisions of Rules, 2018 -- exoribitantly higher than actual price -- petitioner and other persons deprived of participation -- impugned notification and corrigendum set aside -- respondent/authority granted liberty to issued notification by showing proper minimum reserve price according to provisions of Rules, 2018. (1993) 3 SCC 161 and (1975) 1 SCC 559 followed. 2017 SCC online Hyd. 426 relied on.
[Paras 7 to 9
fodkl izkf/kdj.kksa dh laifRr;ksa dk izca/ku rFkk O;;u fu;e] 2018 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 6 (viii)rFkk 4 && e-iz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vf/kfu;e] 1973 && /kkjk 86 lgifBr /kkjk 58 &&Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 12 rFkk 226 && izR;FkhZ@tcyiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k laifRr;ksa dk izca/k rFkk iV~Vk fu;fer djus ds fy, dkuwu }kjk fojfpr gS &&jkT ds vfHkizk; ds Hkhrj vkrk gS &&tcyiqj fodkl izkf/kdj.k us Hkw[kaM uhyke ds fy, j[ks && fuf'pr dh xbZ U;wure dher fu;e] 2018 ds mica/kksa ds izfrdwy &&okLrfod dher ls vR;f/kd :i ls vf/kd &&;kph rFkk vU; O;fDr Hkkx ysus ls oafpr &&vk{ksfir vf/klwpuk rFkk 'kqf}&i= vikLr &&fue] 2018 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj mfpr U;wure vkjf{kr dher n'kkZrs gq, vf/klwpuk tkjh djus ds fy, izR;Fkh@izkf/kdj.k dks Lora=rk iznku dh xbZA ¼1993½ 3 ,l lh lh 161 rFkk ¼1975½ 1 ,l lh lh 559 vuqlfjrA 2017 ,l lh lh vkuykbu gS n- 426 voyafcrA¼iSjk 7 ls 9
ORDER
1. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is mainly raising grievance against the action of respondent No.3 as a notification dated 28.07.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020 was published inviting online bids for leasing various plots owned by the respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority (in short “JDA”) under different schemes but the Minimum Acceptable Bid Value (Reserved value) was not in accordance with the provisions of rule 6(viii) of Madhya Pradesh Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampatiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 (in short, “Rules, 2018”), which is depriving the petitioner and other persons of participation in the auction proceeding as the reserved value of the plots was on a higher side. The said reserved value was determined by adopting illegal method ignoring the mannerism provided for determination of the reserved value under the Rules, 2018. Therefore, the instant petition has been filed for seeking quashment of the impugned notification dated 28.7.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020.
2. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the JDA is a formation of Statute which is known as Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, exercising power conferred by section 86 read with section 58, the State of M.P. notified the Rules, 2018 vide gazette notification dated 1.10.2018 regulating the management and lease of properties owned by various City Development Authorities across the State. As such, the JDA comes within the purview of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(viii) of Rules, 2018 provides mannerism as to under which reserved value or minimum acceptable bid value of a land is calculated. Sub-rule (viii) of rule 6 reads as under:-
“(viii) The reserve price of the property under this rule shall be calculated as under:-
(a) In case of land/plot:-
(i) Reserved value of residential property = [area of land/plot in sq. mt.] X [the rate of developed plot (Rs. Per sq. mt.) on the date of notification of invitations for proposal according to price guide principle (Collector Guideline) in the same residential area]
Under these rules, for the purpose of calculating, if it is found that the property which is to be disposed is situated in the area for which the Collector Guidelines Rate have not been issued, then such situation, the rate (in sq. mt.) of developed plot according to the price guiding principle (Collector Guideline) of the nearest residential developed area (whose FAR should not be less than 1), will be valid.”
In a meeting of the Board of Directors of JDA held on 16.10.2019, a proposal was put-up for leasing out 21 plots available under two schemes and those schemes were placed before the Board of Directors for its approval and then it was decided that the highest bid received for a scheme in the proposals invited prior to 16.10.2019 shall be treated as the Reserved Value (Minimum Acceptable Bid) for any plot to be leased in that scheme and online applications to be invited showing such reserved price. Accordingly, the applications were invited by issuing notification dated 28.7.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-P/5).
3. As per the petitioner, the JDA has no right to develop any mechanism as per their own convenience and such a decision is contrary to the provision of rule 4 of Rules, 2018. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the JDA has also violated the provisions of rule 6 of Rules, 2018. Rule 6 deals with the disposal of properties by inviting bids and further a procedure which has to be adopted during the process of inviting bids in sealed cover/online. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner as has been raised in the petition is that the minimum price of the plots put for auction, has been concluded by the JDA by adopting the method which is foreign to the provisions of Rules, 2018 and contrary to the provisions which are prescribed under
