NAND RAM Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) This bunch of writ petitions involves common questions of facts and law. The petitioners herein applied for allotment of plots in the Gudmandi Commercial Extension, Hanumangarh. The auction was held on 18.12.2008. The petitioners herein succeeded in the auction. Conditions No.1, 2, 3 and 4 of the auction notice being germane for the controversy at hand, are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) As per the terms and conditions of the auction notice, the aspirants were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as security in the cases of agricultural land and Rs. 5000/- as security in the cases of plots. Furthermore, ?th of the reserve price was to be deposited in advance. As per Clause No.4, upon the sale being confirmed, the purchaser was required to deposit the balance ?th sale price with the Municipality within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of notice in this regard. The petitioners succeeded in the auction and duly deposited ?th of the reserve price with the respondent Municipality in the year 2008 itself. It is an admitted position as emerging from record that the plots in question which were sold to the petitioners through auction for construction of shops in the Gudmandi were already under encroachment. The petitioners kept on representing the respondents to have the encroachments removed and issue them the notice for depositing the remaining ?th of the sale amount so that they could use the plots as per the terms of the allotment. Finally, under the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11958/2011 "Anil Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.", the encroachments on the land in question were removed in the year 2014 i.e. after six years of the auction. However, despite the encroachments being removed, the notices for deposit of balance sale price were received by the petitioners, nor they were handed over possession of the plots. They filed repeated applications/representations to the Municipality which in turn, sought permission from the State Government for confirming the sale of the disputed 35 plots which, had been sold to the petitioners herein in the auction held in the year 2015. Finally, the State Government issued the letter dated 18.11.2015 under which, the Municipality was given sanction to regularize these 35 plots after charging the remaining ?th amount alongwith simple interest @ 15% from the auction purchasers. The cost/penalty was waived. In furtherance of such direction, the petitioners herein received the impugned notices in the year 2015 requiring them to deposit balance ?th sale amount with 15% interest thereupon applied from the date of the auction. The petitioners are aggrieved by the condition in the notice whereunder, they were required to pay interest from the date of auction on the balance ?th sale amount and hence they have approached this Court through these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the said demand of interest.