VINOD RASEWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioners have been compelled to file this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to get the registered sale deed executed in their favour, in respect of Plots No.2, 3, 5 and 6 in Khasra No.51 and under the District Centre Scheme. Further, it has been prayed that the respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Kota be prohibited from taking any coercive or prejudicial action, such as reducing or increasing the size of the plots in question. It has also been prayed by the petitioners that respondent No.5 Union of Bank of India be also prohibited from taking any steps/ action against the petitioners in respect of their residential house situated at Plot No.3, Nursery Yojna, Talwandi, Kota, with regard to settling the home loan taken by them.

(2.) The facts relevant for adjudication of the present matter are that respondent Urban Improvement Trust, Kota had issued an advertisement on 09.12.2010 in a local newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar', through the Secretary respondent No.4, for sell of five plots admeasuring 1355.76 sq. feet, in Khasra No.51 under the District Centre Scheme of UIT, Kota by auction to be conducted on the same day. The petitioners had purchased four plots bearing number 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the said auction as being the highest bidder. Thereafter on 17.01.2011, the Secretary, UIT, had issued sanction letters to the petitioners with regard to the purchase of the aforesaid plots wherein the area, total price and the auction amount to be deposited was mentioned (Annexure-2 to 5).

(3.) Subsequently, after making full payment of the plots purchased in auction, the petitioners moved applications to the UIT on 07.03.2011 and 10.03.2011 for getting the registered sale deed executed. The respondent UIT had acknowledged the receipt of applications and informed the date for executing the deed in respect of plot No.2 and 6 as 06.04.2011 and for other two plots to be 11.04.2011. But thereafter the respondent UIT did not do the needful with regard to execution of the documents of sale. The petitioners had then given representations of UIT which were of no avail and resulted in delay in completing the documentation process.