Unilateral Deposit Of Amount In Absence Of Allotment Letter Does Not Create Any Rights In Land: Rajasthan High Court

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, while dismissing the writ petition, ruled,

"This Court finds that merely by depositing amount unilaterally by the petitioner-firm, in absence of any allotment letter, would not create any right to claim allotment in its favour."

The court observed that the allotment of industrial plots on "first come first serve" basis is not approved in the interest of the respondent-Corporation and as such, the decision cannot be termed arbitrary.

The court noted that the various note sheets/ internal departmental communications, cannot be treated as a decision of the State/RIICO. The expression of opinion by an Officer or a particular individual is a noting simplicitor but the said noting cannot be treated as a decision of the competent authority.

On the petitioner's submission that at one point of time the authorities had taken a decision to allot plots on the basis of "first come first serve" as the industrial area was not fully developed and many people were not interested in taking plots in the said industrial area, the court opined that the said expressions by certain officials, will not ultimately result into creating any right in favour of the petitioner-firm.

Reliance was placed by the court on State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Mehar Din, where the court has dealt with the right of the highest bidder in the auction proceedings and has found that until the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable, the High Court should not sit like a court of appeal and it is the competent authority who floats the tender, who is the best judge of its requirement.

It was opined by the court that RIICO Rules though provides under Rule 5 that RIICO can dispose of the plots in the industrial area either by public auction or by entertaining the individual applications, however, the allotment of plots without having element of public auction by large number of applications has not been approved time and again by the Apex Court.

Further reliance was placed on the Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., where it was held that the sale of plots by inviting individual applications or on the basis of first come first serve leave room, where authorities may use their discretion by not keeping in mind the best interest of the Corporation.

The court noted that the petitioner-firm's submission that reasons assigned for cancelling the allotment were non-existent as there was neither any ambiguity in the advertisement nor any irregularity in depositing the money. The court observed that the initial consideration with the authorities might have been the so-called irregularities, however, if the competent authority had taken the decision that "first come first serve" method of awarding plots was not required to be continued and public auction was better method, no arbitrariness can be attached to the said decision.

Facts

The petitioner is a partnership firm, engaged in the activity of manufacturing and exporting handicrafts. In order to establish its new industrial unit in Jaipur applied for allotment of plot in pursuance of the public notice dated 13.12.2015 issued by the respondent-Corporation for different sizes. The petitioner-firm had applied for one plot and was found successful in the procedure of draw of lottery for allotment of plot No.A/127 and as such the petitioner-firm was allotted the said plot vide allotment letter dated 18.02.2016 and accordingly, the petitioner-firm deposited the required amount and lease agreement was also executed in its favour.

The petitioner-firm has pleaded that a notice dated 20.05.2017 was issued in the Rajasthan Patrika (Hindi) dated 21.05.2017 and Hindustan Times (English) dated 21.05.2017 whereby three plots of 10,000 Sq.Mtrs. were offered for sale at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per Sq.Mtrs. on "first come first serve" basis. It aso pleaded that for all purposes, priority of the its-firm was first and all the formalities including payment of requisite amount and furnishing of all desired documents was made by the petitioner-firm, as per the terms and conditions.

On 07.07.2017 the respondent-Corporation sent back the cheques to the petitioner-firm intimating that money deposited by it is being returned as the allotment process had been cancelled at the Headquarters level. On receipt thereof, the petitioner-firm submitted representation on informing the respondent-Corporation that neither any reason was assigned for cancellation of allotment process nor any opportunity was afforded before issuing the order of cancellation. However, the petitioner-firm, under protest, is said to have accepted the refund amount by reserving its rights. The petitioner-firm obtained note sheet under RTI and there it came to know that on the basis of certain complaints made by the officials of Sitapura Industrial Association, the matter was taken on hype and the decision was taken arbitrarily to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioner-firm.

In this regard, the court noted that the question to be decided in the present writ petition is as whether the authorities have acted arbitrarily in taking the decision of cancelling the allotment process which was based on the method of "first come first serve".

Counsels for the Petitioner: Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr.Ashish Sharma, Advocate.

Counsels for the Respondents: Major R.P.Singh, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat, Advocate

Case Title: M/s.Mangalam Arts through its partner Sh.Rajendra Kumar Rawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

Click Here To Read/Download Order