AYAZ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by an educational society assailing the legality and validity of the orders dtd. 9/7/2020 and 23/9/2020 passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 respectively cancelling the allotment of the subject plot made in its favour with a further prayer to restore its possession and approve the building plan.

(2.) The facts in brief as revealed from the memo of writ petition are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and was allotted the plot no.S-2, Sector-A, Shri Rama Krishnapuram Scheme, Kota admeasuring 3000 sq. meters for institutional purpose by the respondent no.3, Urban Improvement Trust, Kota (for short-'UIT') vide allotment letter dtd. 25/11/2002 under the Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Lands) Rules, 1974 (for brevity-'the Rules of 1974'). The allotment was made at a premium amount of Rs.1000.00 per sq. meters. The allotment came to be cancelled by the UIT vide its order dtd. 27/12/2004 on account of the petitioner's failure to pay the premium amount. On a request by the petitioner to re-consider the decision of cancellation, the State Government, vide its letter dtd. 29/6/2012, restored allotment of 2000 sq. mtrs instead of 3000 sq. mtrs initially allotted at the same rate along with penalty and interest. Upon payment of the due amount, a lease deed dtd. 15/7/2013 was executed in petitioner's favour and was registered on 17/7/2013. In pursuance of the letter dtd. 27/9/2013 issued by the UIT, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner. It is stated that when the petitioner-society started constructing boundary wall, obstruction was raised by the local residents, a part of the boundary wall was demolished and the respondent no.3, UIT was requested by the local residents and political leaders to cancel the allotment made in its favour. It is submitted that in the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner could not start construction work. However, it submitted an application dtd. 9/4/2018 along with copies of the building plan in prescribed proforma to the respondent no.3 seeking approval and permission to raise construction. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the UIT extended the period for raising construction levying a penalty of Rs.2,75,596.00 under the Rules of 1974 which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 29/6/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner vide its letter dtd. 27/8/2018 requested for modification in the building plan qua setback area in view of advent of Unified Building Bye-laws, 2017 (for short-'Bye-laws, 2017') which was rejected by the UIT vide its letter dtd. 10/1/2019. When, for long, no action was taken by the respondent no.3 on petitioner's application for approval of the building plan, it requested the respondent no.3 vide its letters dtd. 5/9/2019, 24/9/2019 and 7/10/2019 to approve the same. The petitioner was directed by the UIT vide its letter dtd. 3/10/2019 to submit the building plan in accordance with the construction status at the plot for, as per the Junior Engineer's report, the construction has already started. The petitioner in response thereof, submitted the building plan as per the site position vide its letter dtd. 21/10/2019 with a request to approve the same. However, it received a show cause notice dtd. 24/8/2020 on 12/9/2020 dispatched by the respondent no.3 on 9/9/2020 wherein, four allegations were imputed against it. The petitioner submitted its reply on 14/9/2020. On receipt of a copy of a caveat application from the learned counsel for respondent no.3 on 3/10/2020, the petitioner came to know of the two orders dtd. 23/9/2020 passed by the UIT, Kota and dtd. 9/7/2020 passed by the State Government and when the petitioner visited the office of the respondent no.3 on 5/10/2020, it was handed over copies of the orders dtd. 23/9/2020 and 9/7/2020. It is submitted that the order dtd. 9/7/2020, whereby, the State Government has cancelled the allotment of the subject plot, has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is averred that the order dtd. 23/9/2020 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as except mentioning that reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, no reason has been assigned for cancelling the allotment. Hence, prayer is made as stated hereinabove.

(3.) The respondent no.1, in its reply, raised objection as to locus of the petitioner to file the writ petition. It is stated that all the correspondence on behalf of the petitioner-society was done by its Secretary, Shri Riyaz Ahmed whereas, the writ petition has been filed by one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain claiming to be Secretary of the Society without any information as to when he was elected so. It is submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands as the society was formed from the persons belonging to the muslim community whereas, induction of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain in the society overnight casts serious doubts as to nature of the induction. It is averred that change in the management of the society has been intentional and deliberate with ulterior motive to grab the valuable land which is in the nature of benami transaction. It is stated that before taking the decision to cancel the allotment vide order dtd. 23/9/2020, the petitioner was served upon with a show cause notice dtd. 24/8/2020. It is submitted that the petitioner did not utilise the plot for the purpose it was allotted and was also guilty of raising construction without prior approval. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner-society was pointed out the defects and deficiencies in the building plan submitted by it; but, without meeting the same and without getting the building plan approved, it started construction which was in breach of terms and conditions of allotment. It is further stated that the order dtd. 9/7/2020 was passed by it on the basis of factual report dtd. 26/6/2020 furnished by the UIT. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.