Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Johari Handicarefts &Anr; vs State Of Raj And Ors on 7 November, 2016
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6378/2016
M/s Johari Handicrafts Industries Plot No. G-1-61, VKI
Extension, Jaipur (Raj.) through its partner Sh.
Ramakant Johari S/o Sh. Om Prakash Johari aged about 45
years, R/o M/s Johari Handicrafts Industries, G-61, VKI
Extension, Jaipur (Raj.)
Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd. through its managing Director, having
Office at VKI RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment
Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Dy. Manager having
Office at VKI RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
Respondents
2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16874/2015
M/s.Johari Handicrafts Industries, G-61, VKI Extension
(Badarna), Jaipur (Raj.) through Partner Deepak Johari.
Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corp. Ltd. Head Office Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
(Raj.) through its Managing Director.
2. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corp. Ltd. (A Rajasthan Government Undertaking), Office
2
of the Regional Manager, RIICO Ltd., Road No. 5, V.K.I.
Area, Jaipur (Raj.) through its Regional Manager.
Respondents
DATE OF ORDER : : 7th November, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
*******
Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Shri Sandeep Pathak) for the petitioner.
Shri Rishab Khandelwal for the respondents.
## In these two petitions, there is a common dispute dispute between the same parties and therefore they were clubbed together and are being decided simultaneously by this common order.
The writ petition no.6378/16 has been filed by petitioner with the prayer to quash the order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan by which the request for interim stay in the appeal filed by the petitioner for their eviction under the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1964 has been declined. Further prayer is that the petitioners are entitled to get the cancelled allotment restored on payment of outstanding amount payable towards development charges. The second writ petition bearing no.16874/15 has been filed by the same petitioner inter 3 alia with the prayer that the impugned order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure-3) cancelling the allotment of the petitioner, order dated 23.01.2014 (Annexure-6) whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order of cancellation has been dismissed by Managing Director of the respondent-RIICO and the order dated 11.05.2015 (Annexure-9) whereby the review petition of the petitioner was dismissed by the Infrastructure Development Committee, be quashed and set aside. Shri Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither the appellate authority, nor the reviewing authority i.e. Infrastructure Development Committee took note of the fact that a new policy of restoration of allotment of cancelled plot was placed when the respondents were considering the case of the petitioner in their meeting held on 11.05.2015. However, the respondents in para 10 of the order aforesaid dated 11.05.2015 have wrongly stated that there is no other provision in the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 to consider restoration of cancelled plot in spite of the fact that the applicant is still ready to deposit all the outstanding dues in one go along with restoration charges as per prevailing rules, which reflects total non-application of mind on 4 their part. The aforesaid finding has been recorded in ignorance of the new policy of restoration of allotment of cancelled plots vide Rule 24(3) of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, according to which restoration of the allotment of cancelled plot can be considered subject to only two conditions namely; that the plot should not have been re-allotted after cancellation to the third party and that possession of the plot should not have been taken taken by RIICO. Both the conditions are qualified by the petitioner.
Learned counsel argued that the appellate authority also erred in law in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay of eight years ignoring Rule 24(3)(2) according to which no time limit shall be applicable for old cases if the applicant for restoration of cancelled allotment fulfilled aforesaid eligibility conditions for filing of restoration application.
Shri Rishab Khandelwal, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner though challenged the order of cancellation of allotment by filing appeal initially before the Managing Director and thereafter review petition before the Infrastructure Development Committee, but they never applied for restoration of the 5 allotment of plot in terms of Rule 24(3), supra, which was subject to certain conditions and payment of restoration charges as detailed out in Section 24(3)(4). Unless they apply for such restoration invoking policy aforesaid, they cannot be allowed to complain that the appellate authority and the Infrastructure Development Committee did not apply their mind to such restoration application.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as also the other material on record and RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, especially Rule 24(3), this Court finds that the parties are at ad idem that the respondents had after 7.7.2014 revised the policy of restoration of allotment of cancelled plot in terms of Rule 24(3), which inter alia provides that restoration of allotment of cancelled plot can be considered by the Corporation depending upon the merit of each case, subject to fulfillment of the criteria/conditions enumerated therein namely; (i) possession of the cancelled plot is lying with the party (applicant), and/or; (ii) possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation, and refundable amount consequent upon cancellation of allotment of plot is not paid, and/or; (iii) possession of the cancelled plot is 6 with the Corporation and cheque of refundable amount sent to the party but not encashed by the lessee/purchaser, and/or; (iv) possession of the cancelled plot is with the Corporation and no amount is payable to the lessee/purchaser consequent upon cancellation of allotment of plot and the deposited money has been adjusted against the outstanding dues of the Corporation. The provision contained in Rule 24(3) (1) is subject to further riders namely; that the plot for which restoration is sought has still not been re- allotted after cancellation of allotment by the Corporation and further that any request under the aforesaid restoration policy can be considered only when the allottee/applicant has removed (in case possession with the Corporation), the breach/violation of terms and conditions of the allotment letter/lease agreement for which allotment of plot is cancelled. It is not in dispute that the possession of the plot in question is still with the petitioner and that such plot has not been re-allotted to any other party.
Coming now to the aspect of delay and the time limit, Rule 24(3)(2) of the Rules of 1979 clarifies this position by providing that application for restoration of allotment of plot should be filed within one year of 7 cancellation order issued on and after 17.06.2014. This later date signifies onset of the new policy for restoration of cancelled plot. However, it has been further amplified by providing that no time limit shall be applicable for old cases if they fulfilled aforesaid eligibility conditions for filing of restoration application. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is reasonable that such restoration application has to be first considered by the Unit Head of the Corporation subject to approval of time extension involved for payments/utilization of plot by the competent authority as envisaged in Rule 24(3)(3) and this course has not been adopted by the petitioner.
The controversy therefore lies in a very narrow compass that petitioner has to again invoke the powers of the respondents for restoration of allotment of cancelled plot in terms of the wholesome policy contained in Rule 24(3) of the Rules of 1979 and for that purpose, the entire matter need to be considered by the respondents all over again.
In view of above, the petitions are allowed, impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for restoration of allotment of 8 cancelled plot in terms of the policy contained in Rule 24 (3), supra subject to fulfilling the eligibility of the petitioner and on fulfilling the routine criteria and deposit of the restoration charges as envisaged therein. Necessary orders thereabout may be passed within three months from the date of making application by the petitioner along with copy of this order. Required application in this behalf may be filed by the petitioner within ten days from today along with copy of this order. The petitioner may not be dispossessed from the plot in question till decision on its application.
(Mohammad Rafiq),J.
RS/38-39