ORDER : 

Vinay Saraf, J.

1. By the instant writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner company is seeking following reliefs:

“(i) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record of the case.

(ii) Issue a writ(s) of certiorari, order(s) or direction(s)quashing the impugned order dated 6.5.2025(Annexure P/1).

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or direction directing the Respondents to execute lease deed for plot no. E2/12 Arera Colony, Bhopal after removal of all encroachments at the earliest and without insisting on the additional three conditions as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(iv) Direct the respondents to pay interest @18 percent per annum on the deposited amount and adjust the same against the balance amount to be paid by the petitioner for grant of lease and refund balance amount, if any to the petitioner.

(v) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Shri Brian D’silva, Senior Advocate with Shri Sarabvir Singh Oberoi and Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel appeared for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General appeared for the respondent/State.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard for the purpose of final disposal of the petition.

4. The facts of present case lie in narrow compass are that the respondent Nazul Officer (Rajdhani Pariyojana), Bhopal has issued a public notice on 14.12.1995 inviting offers for four plots proposed to be leased out for a period of thirty years located in Arera Colony Bhopal. Petitioner company submitted a bid of Rs.94 lacs for Plot No.E2/12 admeasuring 13251 Sq. Ft. and the bid was accepted by the competent authority vide letter dated 18.01.1996 with four conditions. The petitioner company deposit 25% of bid amount i.e. Rs.23,50,000/- against the total bid offer of Rs.94 lacs and the balance amount of Rs.70,50,000/- was required to be deposited within a period of seven days from the date of acceptance of the bid. Balance amount was not deposited by the petitioner company within stipulated time and by letter dated 29.01.1996, petitioner objected to the imposition of four new conditions and requested to waive the same.

5. A show cause notice was issued by the Collector on 08.02.1996 to the petitioner intimating that the petitioner had committed breach of term no.5 of the public notice and consequently, the amount deposited by the petitioner was liable to be forfeited. Petitioner submitted a response on 09.02.1996 and in the said response, submitted that some temporary huts (jhuggi basti)were available on the site, which should be removed first and thereafter the petitioner would deposit the balance amount.

6. On 30.05.1996, Nazul Officer informed the petitioner that encroachments had been removed and demanded to deposit the balance amount within three days. Petitioner Company instead of depositing the balance amount raised an objection that five huts still existed in the property and the encroachments had not been removed completely and on that pretext did not deposit the balance amount. Later, on 04.06.1996, petitioner company issued another letter wherein the objection was raised that Civil Suit No.7A/1996 (Khushal Chandra Jetha Vs. State of M.P.) was pending in the Court of IInd Additional Civil Judge, Class I, Bhopal in respect of the subject plot and the respondent could not transfer the property in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was stated in the letter that the balance amount would be demanded after disposal of the civil suit.

7. As per petitioner, the civil suit was filed by one Khushal Chandra Jetha upon the allegation that in public auction dated 15.06.1967, he was declared a successful bidder but the lease deed of the property could not be executed in his favour as the property was under encroachment. Civil Court dismissed the application moved by him under Order 39 Rule 1 &