QUEENS GRANITE PVT LTD Vs. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter called as `the JDA') had decided to sell by way of auction, Khasra No. 102 situated at village Kukas, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas i. e. 1. 718 acres. On 8. 8. 1996 the intending bidders were required to deposit earnest money of Rs. 20,000/-and the highest bidder was required to deposit 5% of the bid amount on the site and 10% were required to be deposited within 24 hours. Remaining 85% was to be deposited within 30 days.

(2.) AS per Annexure 1 the site was reserved for hotel. The petitioner was the highest bidder of a bid of Rs. 17,21,000/-per Bigha. The total bid amount was Rs. 47,32,750/ -. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,37,000/-at the spot, being 5% of the bid amount, and remaining amount of Rs. 4,73,000/-was deposited as per the requirement on 9. 8. 1996. A total amount of Rs. 7,10,000/-stood deposited. The bid was accepted and confirmed in favour of the petitioner and he was asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 40,44,250/ -. A site plan was asked for by the petitioner to know the approach at the site. It is stated that because of the reason that the plot in question was outside the sanctioned scheme and site was sold for a hotel purpose, it is necessary that the minimum development plan of the area should have been prepared to enable the petitioner to approach the site by way of road in addition to other development works like provisions of supply of water, electricity, sewerage etc. as to enable the petitioner to construct and complete the building within two years as per the terms and conditions. The petitioner made representations vide Annexures-7 & 8. It is stated that the assurance was given about providing the minimum amenities and at the asking of the department the petitioner was compelled to write Annexure-9 which was on the assurance to the effect that it was otherwise the duty of the JDA to provide required minimum amenities provided under the rules and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity to bring any controversy on the record, however, the petitioner was lateron informed vide order dated 28. 9. 1996 Annexure-10 to the effect that no assurance was ever given to the petitioner of providing any approach road and, therefore, the petitioner was not only asked to deposit the balance amount but also complete the construction as well as per the plan. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the map, the site is situated far away from any of the road or high way. For constructing Five Star Hotel or any hotel, it is not possible to undertake any construction until and unless there is a road provided to the site and that road must be provided by the JDA as per the plan with the minimum requirement of the width and the quality of the road which are to be completed by the JDA. It is alleged that not only approach road and other amenities have been denied, but the petitioner had been burdened with the further interest on un-paid amount. It is stated that admittedly the provisions of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called as `the Rules') were applicable and were to be adhered to and thus the plea of the respondent-JDA to the effect that the plot was sold on `as it was and where it was' basis, has no relevancy so far the amenities are concerned. The petitioner wants to invoke the provisions of R. 16 of the Rules. It is stated by the petitioner that in regard to the auction of other hotels, the JDA had been invariably providing the roads in the plan. It is the case of the petitioner that when the plots are sold, the prices are fixed after taking into consideration of the development of the area. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in forfeiting the amount of Rs. 7,10,000/-with a direction that the JDA be directed to abide by the rules. Writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to provide the development plan by showing the approach road and also the other amenities like water, electricity etc. and the impugned orders be quashed.

(3.) AS per Annexure-1 the auction notice, it has been stated that the conditions of the auction shall be announced at the spot, meaning thereby that the authorities concerned might have announced the conditions of auction not by way of any advance notice, but at the spot.