2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19024
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
RIICO THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
M/S NEEMRANA ASSOCIATES – Respondent
CSA / 104 / 2012
[2025:RJ-JP:27366]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 104/2012 Rajasthan State Industrial Development And Investment Corporation Ltd. RIICO, Through Its Regional, Shahjahanpur, Distt. Alwar, Raj.
----Appellant/Defendant Versus
1. M/s. Neemrana Associates Through Dr. Subhash Yadav, Gowsami Tractors, Singhana Road, Narnaul, Distt.
Mahendragarh Haryana ----Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Ram Das S/o Shri Kundanlal Sharma, Kamaniya, Teh.
Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana
3. Ashok Mudgal S/o Shri Ghanshyam, Neemrana, Teh.
Behror, Distt. Alwar
4. Smt. Santosh Yadav W/o Shri Balwan Singh, Chavandi, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar
5. Smt. Santosh W/o Shri Ram Kishan, Kamaniya, Teh.
Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana
6. Kailash Chand S/o Shri Jairam, Village Folaadpur, Teh.
Behror, Distt. Alwar
7. Shubhram S/o Shri Ramjilal, Karoda, Teh. Behror, Distt.
Alwar
8. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Badri Prasad, Behind Police Station, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar
9. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Sheolal, Behind Police Station, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar
10. Balwan Singh Yadav S/o Shri Hiralal, Chawadi, Teh.
Behror, Distt. Alwar
11. Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Namalum, Baatsani, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar
12. Chhitar Mal S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Dhundaria, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar
13. Udai Singh Tomar S/o Shri Prabhu Singh, B-12, Dr.
Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-5, New Delhi
14. Rajpal Singh S/o Shri Sheo Narayan, B-12, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-5, New Delhi
15. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Jasram Jat, Folaadpur, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar ----Proforma Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kr. Bhandari, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Mahendra Verma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 24 /07/2025 REPORTABLE This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant-
defendant-RIICO (for short 'the RIICO') against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District-Alwar, (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil appeal No. 48/2009 (24/2004), whereby the first appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Behror, Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 19/2001 titled as "M/s Neemrana Associates Vs. Regional Manager RIICO Ltd. and Ors.", by which the trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale and lease deed dated 13.02.2002 and held the plaintiff entitled to get land equivalent to the disputed land in Industrial Area Neemrana from defendant at the same rate (i.e. Rs. 310 per sq. mtr.).
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 15 mentioning therein that an auction notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar, Alwar Edition and commercial land admeasuring 15,150 square meter in Industrial Area, Neemrana was put to an auction on 12.12.2000 at a reserve price of Rs. 400 per square meter, for which a proposal @ Rs. 300 per square meter was received. It was clarified that if any person interested in giving the higher than proposed amount, he could deposit 2% of the bidding amount as earnest money with Regional Manager Office RIICO Ltd. Shahjahanpur by 05.01.2001. If no proposal is received, then RIICO administration would take decision on the proposals so received by the said date.
As per the auction notice, the plaintiff submitted a proposal in the office of RIICO to purchase the said commercial land @ Rs. 310/- per square meter on 05.01.2001 and deposited 2% of the bid amount (i.e. Rs. 1,26,000/-) in cash towards earnest money. It was mentioned that no proposal more than the plaintiff's bidding amount was received by RIICO. It was also mentioned that thereafter RIICO breached the terms of the auction and informed the plaintiff that the said commercial land would not b