HIREN RADHAVJIBHAI BHIKADIYA Vs. KHETWADI BAZAR SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Misc. Civil Appeal No.29 of 2011.

(2.) SHORT relevant facts are, thus; The petitioner is one of the bidders. The respondent No.1 had passed an unanimous resolution No.10 on 27.6.2010, whereby it had resolved to sell nonagricultural land owned by it. The said land is at village Sajod, Taluka Ankleshwar, District Bharuch. It is admeasuring 23,168 sq. mtrs. The respondent had duly obtained the permission of Director of Agriculture Produce and Rural Finance to dispose of the land. The respondent No.1 had unanimously resolved to fix upset value of the land at Rs.650/per sq. mtr. and it also resolved to invite tenders. A public notice was issued in leading newspaper on 2.12.2010, inviting tenders. One of the conditions was that bidders shall deposit Rs.1 lac as a deposit along with the offer. The respondent No.1 had received 11 bids including bid of petitioner and respondent No.2. The present petitioner had offered Rs.711/per sq. mtr. while respondent No.2 had offered Rs.850/per sq. mtr. The respondent No.1 thereafter informed the bidders by writing a letter dated 21.12.2010 inviting the bidders on 3.1.2011 in the office of Chairman of respondent No.1. It is the case of the petitioner that said intimation / letter was not received by the petitioner. In the General Board Meeting held on 3.1.2011, the Board has considered 11 bids. Nine bidders had remained present. The Board had invited 9 bidders to take part in open bid. Accordingly, the bid of respondent No.2 being highest was accepted. The respondent No.2 had offered Rs.868/per sq. mtrs.

(3.) THE present petitioner had thereafter instituted Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 2011. In substance, the petitioner had prayed to cancel the resolution whereby the bid of respondent No.2 was accepted by the respondent No.1. It had also prayed for declaration that respondent No.1 has no legal right to execute the sale deed. Permanent injunction was also sought restraining the respondent No.1 from executing the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.2. On the line of relief prayed for by the petitioner, the petitioner had also prayed interim relief.