SHANKER DUTTA Vs. U I T BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19th December, 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5654/94 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the writ petition had arisen out of contractual obligation and the petitioner desired a direction that the respondents may be asked to execute lease-deed in his favour. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the writ petition was belated.

(3.) A bare perusal of the provisions of the U. I. T. , Act 1951 (1959?) and the Rules made there under shows that U. I. Ts. have been created under the authority of law for the purpose indicated by the U. I. T. , Act. The functions which are to be performed by the U. I. T. , are regulated by the provisions of the U. I. T. , Act and Rules made thereunder. The rights and obligations of the U. I. T. are governed by the provisions of the U. I. T. Act and the rules. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the U. I. T. is as free as private citizens in the matter of entering into the contracts and setlling the terms and conditions of contracts. For the same reason private persons who want to obtain plots of land from the U. I. T. , whether on lease or otherwise, have to comply with the provisions of the U. I. T. Act and the Rules. They cannot be permitted to act in centravention of the U. I. T. Act and the Rules. Viewed in this light, the rights and obligations which are created by the U. I. T. Act and the Rules made under the U. I. T. , Act cannot be said to have their origin in the contract entered into between the U. I. T. and the private citizens. The origin of these rights and obligations must be said to be statutory.