AKHIL AGRAWAL Vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Indore Development Authority (IDA) published Notification Inviting Tenders (for Short NIT) bearing No. 79/94 on 27/7/1994 for sale of residential plots ad -measuring 50 Ft. x 70 Ft. in size on deposit of Rs. 10,000/ - by Bank Draft along with tender. Copy whereof is Annexure P.1. In response to the aforesaid NIT the grandmother of the Petitioner Leelavati Rampal Agrawal submitted tender which was accepted by the Respondent being highest. In pursuance of acceptance of highest tender, Respondent No. 1 IDA by order No. 2 -2/5627/78/94/10995 dated 6/9/ 1994 issued allotment order for Plot No. 27/F/A/55 in Scheme No. 78 Annexure P.2 is the copy of allotment order. The grandmother of the Petitioner died on 19/5/1999 whereafter the allotted plot was mutated in the name of the Petitioner. According to the Condition No. 4 of the NIT and agreement, Petitioner deposited 25% of the premium and annual lease rent for first year aggregating total Rupees 82,274/ -by Cheque No. 655177 dated 7/11/1994 along with covering letter dated 7/11/ 1994 (Annexure P.3.). It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the State Government in exercise of powers conferred UNDER SECTION 85 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the Adhiniyam") framed the rule called as "Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Viksit Bhumiyon, Griho, Bhavano, Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975" (hereinafter refereed to as "Rules, 1975"). According to Rule 33 when the plot becomes ready for delivery and it is so notified by the authority, the purchaser shall obtain permission of the plot within 60 days of the receipt of notice and shall obtain sale deed from the authority. But in the instant case, the authority has not complied with Rule 33 read with Clause 4 of the Agreement (Annexure P.1) by handing over the physical possession of the said plot immediately on payment of premium at 25% and annual lease rent for first year. Authority has also failed to serve any notice in writing to the Petitioner to obtain possession of the plot or hand over physical possession of the plot even after repeated request of the Petitioner for handing over physical possession of his alleged plot.

(2.) THIS Court does not find any substance in the objection of the Respondents that Petitioner has no locus -standi to challenge the revival order issued in his name because he is not the legal heir of his grandmother Leelavati in whose name the said plot was allotted. The Respondents have not denied the submission of the application by the Petitioner for mutation of his name in place of his grandmother Smt. Leelavati who died on 19/5/199. Along with his application he also submitted affidavit of all the four sons of Leelavati who have relinquished their right on the said plot and given consent in favour of the Petitioner to mutate the plot. These documents have been filed by the Respondents as Annexure R.1. Only thereafter impugned order Annexure P.7 calling upon the Petitioner to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of issuance of this letter for revival of the plot in his name has been issued, shows that the Respondents have accepted the letter (Annexure R.1) submitted by the Petitioner along with affidavit showing the relinquishment of right on the plot by four sons of late Smt. Leelavati. Out of four sons one named Ashok Agrawal is the father of the Petitioner.

(3.) THE judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for Respondents passed in case of Shanti Prasad Jain (supra) is not helpful to the Respondents. In this case, while interpreting Section 115 of the Evidence Act, the Orissa High Court has held that "a counsel's admission of a point of law cannot be binding upon a Court; and Court is not precluded from deciding the rights of the parties on a true view of the law". In the case in hand, there is no admission of the counsel but there is acceptance of application submitted by the applicant for mutation of his name on the strength of relinquishment of right by the four sons of the deceased including father of the Petitioner and Petitioner is also the grandson of the deceased, therefore, also falling within the category of legal heir of deceased. In another judgment Shantilal (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has held that "oral admission by the operator regarding permit of route is inadmissible unless he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of the permit. Such admission given in ignorance of the legal rights of the operator are not conclusive proof and the same will not operate as Estoppel against him". This proposition of law is not also applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present cases. In the instant case, Petitioner's application has been accepted by the Respondents on the strength of affidavit submitted by the legal heirs of Leelavati, therefore, now they cannot say that the application was accepted illegally. The affidavit submitted by four sons is clearly showing that they had relinquished their right in favour of the Petitioner who is the grandson of late Leelavati and none else has ever claimed any right over the plot initially allotted in the life time of Leelavati. Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in the argument of learned Counsel for Respondents. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondents has not argued any other point.