Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Shanti Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 20 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990WLN(UC)348
JUDGMENT Milap Chandra, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order (Annex.11) dated October 25, 1988 of the Municipal Board, Chittorgarh (Respondent No. 3) by which the petitioner's bid for purchasing the plot No. 72, Kumbha Nagar Housing Scheme, Chittorgarh in the auctionsale held on September 18, 1981 was not accepted on account of her failure to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- and her 1/4th amount of Rs. 4,675/- has been forfeited and also the order (Annexure 13) dated February 19, 1990 of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur rejecting the petitioner's revision against the order Annexure 11, for holding that imposition of penalty and interest on the 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- was illegal and without jurisdiction and for directing the respondent No. 3 to accept the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/- and to execute the lease-dead in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot.
2. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of depositing 1/4th amount of the bid the petitioner was told that demand notice for the remaining amount of the bid would be issued after the approval of the auction proceedings by the competent authority, she was never served with notice requiring her to deposit the remaining amount of the bid i.e. Rs. 14,000/- despite repeated requests and without it, the allotment of the said plot could not be cancelled. He further contended that the respondent No. 3 demanded interest @ 15% and penalty besides 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- through his notices, Annexure-5 dated January 3, 1986, Annexure-6 date February 27, 1986 and Anexure-8 dated April 5,1986 and under the rules existing on the date of the auction interest @ 15% could not be levied and penalty imposed. He lastly contended that the findings recorded in the said orders Annexure 11 and 13 that the demand notice (Annexure 9) dated January 15, 1982 was duly served upon the petitioner are perverse.
3. There is no force in the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that she was to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount only after the auction proceedings were confirmed by the competent authority and a demand notice was issued to her. There is no material on the record in support of this case. Rule 14, Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be called the Rules), as existing on the date of the auction i.e. September 18, 1981, ran as under:
14. Sale of residential plots through public auction.- Residential plots not reserved for allotment shall be disposed of through public auction in the manner prescibed in Annexure A, and the Collector concerned or his nominee shall be associated when the action takes place.
4. The relevant portions of the Annexure 'A' referred to in the Rule 14 ran as under:
(f) The successful bidder shall be required to deposit 114th amount of his bid money and the remaining 314th of such money within one month of the acceptance of the bid and in case of failure within next 60 days, interest @ 12% p.a. shall be charged retrospectively from the date of accepting the bid, provided that in case of default to do so bid, money so deposited shall be forfeited.
(g) The bid shall be subject to the sanction of the Chairman of the Municipality in whom are reserved the rights to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason thereof.
It is clear from the above quoted provisions that they do not contemplate issuance of demand notice. The petitioner was required to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount i.e. Rs. 14,000/-within one month of the acceptance of the bid. On her failure, she could deposit within 90 days Rs. 14,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the acceptance of the bid. On her failure to deposit the 3/4th amount with interest within 90 days, her amount of 4,675/- was liable to be forfeited and has rightly been forfeited. It is not her case that any communication was issued to her that the sanction of the Chairman was being awaited. Reading together the above quoted clauses (f) and (g) of the Annexure 'A' of Rule 14, the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount within one month without interest and within 90 days with interest at the aforesaid rate irrespective of the fact that the sanction of the Chairman was not communicated to her. She was not requied to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount if the bid was not sanctioned by the Chairman. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioner that her bid was not sanctioned by the Chairman. If the bid would not have been sanctioned, the demand notice Annexure 9 dated January 15, 1982 would not have been issued.
5. It is correct that clause (f) of the said Annexure 'A' was amended by notification No. F. 3(2)/LSG/83 dated Aug. 3, 1983, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-C dated August 25, 1983 page 530. According to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the amended clause was not applicable in this case as the auction took place on September 18, 1981 and the amended clause came with effect from August 25, 1983. For the benefit of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 invoked the beneficial provisions of the amended clause (f) and issued notices, Annexures 5, 6 and 8. The petitioner should thank herself for not availing of the concession offered by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner admits the receipt of these three notices issued by the respondent No. 3.
6. Even assuming that the respondent No. 3 was required to issue a demand notice after the sanction of the bid by the Chairman of the Board, the petitioner has herself annexed the demand notice dated January 15, 1982 (Annexure 9) with her writ petition. By this notice, she was required to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- within 30 days of its receipt. It is clearly recited in the order Annexure 11 dated October 25, 1988 of the respondent No. 3 that this notice was served upon the petitioner on January 19, 1986 (Anx.8) of the respondent No. 3 that this notice was duly served about its service either on its back or separately has not been annexed with the writ petition. In both the impugned orders Annex. 11 and 13, it has categorically been held that the petitioner was duly served with the demand-notice Annexure-9. It is a finding of fact. It has not been shown as to how this finding of fact is perverse or contrary to law or evidence on record.
7. Notice Annexure 9 has also been attacked on the ground that it was despatched on January 15, 1982 while it was signed on January 16, 1982. It seems that the concerned clerk put the notice before the Executive officer for his signature after entering the despatch No. and date in it. No rule has been pointed out which prohibited such a practice.
8. According to the writ petition, the petitioner submitted representation Annexure 2 on May 18, 1982 and, thereafter, subsequent represantations Annexures 3 and 4 were sent respectively on December 26,1983 and Sept. 9, 1984. The auction took place on September 19, 1981. It is not clear as to what the petitioner did during this period of 20 months i.e. from September 19, 1981 to May 18, 1983. It is also not clear as to what prevented the petitioner from depositing the 3/4th amount of Rs. 14,000/- when, according to her, she was ready and willing to deposit the same. She could send an Account Payee Draft for Rs. 14,000/- in the name of the respondent No. 3. All those facts and circumstances indicate that she wanted to continue her claim over the disputed plot without auctionally depositing the entire sale-amount.
9. This writ petition also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of false averments made in it. In para no. 2 of the writ petition, it is stated "the petitioner was put in possession of the plot no. 72 of Sector 1 on 18.9.1981." The petitioner has enclosed a photostate copy of her application dated May 18,1983 (Annexure 2) addressed to the Executinve officer of the respondent No. 3 with the prayer:
vr% Jheku ls fuosnu gS fd ekaxi= Hkstus dk d"V djs rkfd ckdh jkf'k tek dj IykV dh lqiqnZxh fey lds A If the petitioner would have obtained possession on September 18,1981, she would not have made such a prayer in her application Annexure 2. This shows that the said averment in the writ petition is false.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is summarily dismissed.