FIRM BANSIDHAR PREMSUKHDAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by certificate against the judgment and decree of the Rajasthan High Court, dated January 29, 1963.

(2.) The appellant firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas brought a suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal against the State of Rajasthan on March 31, 1953 for the recovery of Rs. 86,646-3-0 in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur. The case of the appellant was that the former State of Bharatpur with a view to increase the trade and commerce in the said State decided to establish a Mandi at Bharatpur where at the material time a T. B. Hospital was located. It decided to sell plots for certain fixed amounts and, therefore, issued a notification on May 18, 1948 offering the plots by public advertisement for sale on certain terms and conditions. The notification-Ex. 4-was published in Bharatpur Rajpatra and one of the concessions proposed to be granted was embodied in Cl. 3 of the notification which stated :

(3.) The first question involved in this appeal is whether Cl. 3 of the Bharatpur notification-Ex. 4 was a term of the contract of sale between the appellant and the State of Bharatpur. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Ex. 4 which is the notification, dated May 18, 1946 regarding the sale of plots by the Bharatpur State was an offer of purchase of plots on terms and conditions made in that notification. It was contended that the offer was made to the public as a whole and after it was accepted by the appellant a valid contract came into existence. The opposite view-point was presented on behalf of the respondent. It was submitted that the concession granted in C1. 3 did not relate to nor did it form a part of the contract of sale of the plots of the Mandi. It was pointed out that the concession of 25 per cent reduction in customs duty will not merely enure to the benefit of the purchaser of the plots but also enure to the benefit of the person trading in the shop. The benefits were generally offered for trade and business in the Mandi and cannot be considered as an offer of benefit only to, the prospective purchasers of the plots. The commodities for which the concession was granted might be in the hands of purchasers and builders of plots, their tenants and licensees or other dealers. It was, therefore, not possible to hold that the State Government offered the tax concessions as a reciprocal promise in connection with the contracts of sale with the appellant and the latter had no justification for treating the benefits offered as consideration in return for the purchase of the plots and the construction of shop buildings. It is also pointed out by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent that there are certain conditions in the Bharatpur notification - Ex. 4 which cannot, in the nature of things, be treated as terms of the sale. Reference was made, in this connection, to Cls. ,5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. In our opinion, there is much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent but it is not necessary to express any concluded opinion on this aspect of the case. We shall assume in favour of the appellant that Cl. 3 of the Bharatpur notification, Ex. 4 was a term of the contract of sale of plots 8 and 9 of the Mandi. Even upon that assumption the suit of the appellant must fail, for we shall presently show that there was no recognition of the contractual right by the succeeding State of Rajasthan, and in the absence of such recognition the contract between the former State of Bharatpur and the appellant cannot be legally enforced.