ASHWANI PRATAP Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Sri Pankaj Srivastava for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

(2.) At the outset, Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to rebut the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and prays that the instant petition be heard and decided.

(3.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the respondent Nagar Nigam issued an advertisement on 16/10/2004 inviting bids for auction of 25 plots to be settled on lease hold basis. One Jai Prakash Agarwal was the highest bidder for plot No. 604 as he had offered a premium of Rs.23,50,000.00 for obtaining the lease. It seems that twenty five percent of the premium amount was deposited by him on 22/12/2004 as earnest money on fall of the hammer. As per terms of auction, remaining amount was to be deposited within fifteen days of approval of the bid. Thereafter, the allottee had to take steps for execution of the lease deed within one month. On 7/3/2005, Jai Prakash Agarwal was informed that his bid had been accepted. Thereafter, it is alleged that he inspected the plot and came to know that it was under litigation and in illegal occupation of certain person. It also appears from the material placed on record that Nagar Nigam made efforts to obtain possession of the plot by requesting the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to take action against illegal occupants. It is also an admitted fact that on 9/11/2009, Jai Prakash Agarwal submitted an application along with affidavit before respondent No. 2 for transfer of allotment in favour of the petitioner. The said request, it seems, was made in terms of Clause 17 of the auction document. By a communication dtd. 30/3/2012, the petitioner was informed that the request for transfer of the allotment in favour of the petitioner had been approved by Nagar Ayukt by order dtd. 6/3/2012 and the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining premium amount i.e. a sum of Rs.14,25,000.00 along with 15% lease rent i.e. Rs.3,52,500.00, in all a sum of Rs.17,77,500.00 to facilitate execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner deposited Rs.17,77,500.00 on 7/12/2012, however, the lease was not executed in his favour. This compelled the petitioner to file the instant writ petition praying for a mandamus commanding the second respondent no. 2 to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioner and hand over vacant possession of the subject land within stipulated period.