SHASI PAUL Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, being successful bidders of two JDA plots, pursuant to the auction notice, issued by the respondents, have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to finalise the auction of said plots falling under Khasra no. 1260, situate at Paloura Jammu by executing formal lease deeds in their favour.

(2.) Uncontroverted facts of the case are that an action notice came to be issued by respondent no. 3-Jammu Development Authority (JDA) for auction of JDA Land at various locations including strips No. 7 and 8 measuring 2.66 kanals and 4.53 kanals respectively situate at Paloura falling under Khasra No. 1260, whereby the minimum reserve price was respectively fixed for an amount of Rs.1.4 lacs and 104.60 lacs subject to deposition of earnest money by the bidder. Pursuant to the said notice, petitioners applied for and participated in the bidding process. Petitioner no. 1 came to be declared as highest bidder for Strip no. 8 measuring 4.53 kanals and petitioner no. 2 was declared successful highest bidder for Strip no. 7 measuring 2.66 kanals. Consequently, letter of intents vide no. JDA/Strip/Paloura/83-88 dtd. 2/2/2019 came to be issued by respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioners, pursuant to which, mode of payment of the payable bid amount was worked out and petitioners were directed to produce some documents. As per the letter of intents, formal allotment order was required to be issued in favour of the petitioners only on receipt of the entire payment of premium. Petitioners, accordingly, deposited the entire amount of premium by way of different demand drafts which stand enchased by respondent no. 3.

(3.) Allegation of the petitioners is that despite having been declared successful highest bidders, issuance of letter of intents in their favour and deposition of the entire payment of premium, which stands encashed, respondents are not issuing the formal allotment orders and executing lease deed in their favour. Petitioners also submitted the representation, but of no avail.