NILKANTH RAMJI AKARTE Vs. NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition in the Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11-6-1987 passed by the Nagpur Improvement Trust whereby it has cancelled an auction in respect of the plot No. 54 (corner) which was held on 20-4-1987.

(2.) THE respondent-Nagpur Improvement Trust had published an advertisement in Nagpur Times on 12-4-1987 for auction of certain plots in Khasra Nos. 20, 24 and 58 of Mouza Bidpeth on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said advertisement. Accordingly, an auction was held on the said date and before an auction, the terms and conditions of an auction were read over to the bidders and allotment of the land was to be made according to the said terms and conditions. The petitioner participated in the said auction and was the highest bidder in respect of plot No. 54 (corner) in Khasra Nos. 20, 24 and 58 of Mouza Bidpeth. The said auction was held on 20-4-1987 and the petitioner had given the highest bid for Rs. 62,000/ -. Accordingly, as per the terms and conditions of auction, the petitioner deposited ?th of the total amount on 20-4-1987. As per the said terms and conditions of the said auction, the highest bidder has to deposit ?th amount on the date of the auction and thereafter ?th amount of the total amount has to be paid within 30 days and thereafter remaining half amount has to be deposited. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had deposited ?th amount on the date of auction i. e. on 20-4-1987. The respondent had issued a receipt of having received ?th amount to the tune of Rs. 16,000/- on 20-4-1987. It is an admitted position that no allotment letter was given to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that though he was ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount, suddenly by letter dated 11-6-1987 the petitioner was informed that the said plot No. 54 (corner) was reserved for the Freedom Fighters Committee and, therefore, the auction dated 20-4-1987 was cancelled and that the amount deposited by the petitioner was offered to be refunded and the petitioner was informed that he should take refund of the said amount on any working day.