AB. AZIZ DHOBI Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evacuee department published a notification for information of general public, for leasing out five plots carved out on the evacuee property at Methan Channpora under survey no. 2567. The condition precedent for applying was that the application should be accompanied with a CDR worth Rs. 25,000/- pledged to the Custodian. The minimum reserved price per kanal was Rs. 4 Lacs with Rs. 500/- as ground rent per annum. The successful bidders were required to deposit l/4th of the premium immediately after the closure of the bid and the balance amount was to be deposited within one month from the date of auction.

(2.) After holding the auction, petitioner was declared as a successful bidder for plot no. 1 with a premium of Rs. 5 lacs 1/4th of the premium amount, was deposited by the petitioner immediately which has been acknowledged by the respondents vide receipt dated 22.11.2001. The bid was confirmed by the Minister concerned and as a consequence of which the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining premium amount of Rs. 3.75 lacs within three days vide communication dated 29.01.2003, which amount was accepted by the respondents on 15.02.2003 by issuing a receipt of the same. After deposit of the premium amount in full, respondents were required to handover the possession of the plot to the petitioner. This has not happened though petitioner was assured by the respondents that the plot would be handed over to him.

(3.) It transpires that the auction was revoked by the Minister concerned and a fresh auction was ordered to be made. The other successful bidders questioned this order in a civil court as a result of which the possession of the plots could not be handed over to the petitioner. After the conclusion of the litigation, the Custodian General passed an order dated 21.08.2008 whereby Plot nos. 8 and 6-7 were allotted to the proforma respondent nos. 4 and 5. After acquiring the knowledge about these allotments, the petitioner approached the respondents for handing over the possession of the plot to him but he was asked to submit a representation which was submitted by him. Despite having submitted the representations, no decision was taken by the respondents to handover the plot to the petitioner. It is under these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.