Allahabad High Court
Association Of Management Studies A ... vs Meerut Development Authority Through ... on 16 November, 2007
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: V.M. Sahai, Rakesh Sharma
JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. In these two connected writ petitions, common questions of fact and law are involved, hence both these writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. The Respondent No. 2-Pawan Kumar Agrawal in Writ Petition No. 18578 of 2002 has filed Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007.
We have heard Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ajai Kumar and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. l and Sri Pranav Ojha who appears for the Respondent No. 2.
2. The petitioner, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860, is running three Educational Institutions, namely, I.I.M.T. Management College, I.I.M.T. Engineering College and Institute of Information Technology and Computer Science.
The petitioner-society has sought allotment of a plot of land admeasuring about 20,000 Sq. Meters, according to it, earmarked for establishing an Educational Institution, situate in Pocket 'O' of Ganga Nagar Scheme, Phase-I, developed by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. The petitioner-society has also assailed an advertisement inserted in the local News Papers on 15.4.2002 inviting applications from private Builders for sale of the same plot for which negotiations with the petitioner-society had reached at a final stage,. Now the plot was put on sale to the private builders of the region, ignoring the very purpose for which the land was earmarked. It was reserved for establishment of Educational Institutions for the benefit of residents of the area. The petitioner -society has also sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Respondents from changing the land-use illegally, violating the policy of the State Government and the relevant provisions contained in the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the Guidelines contained in the Master Plan of the Meerut Development Authority.
For all round development of the Meeruty City in Western Uttar Pradesh, the first Master Plan was prepared for 20 years, that is, for the period from 1971 to 1991. This Master Plan was amended for a further period of ten years on 14.8.1996. Various Zones were earmarked for commercial, residential and educational purposes. The Ganga Nagar Scheme, where the petitioner-society is running its Educational Institutions, was established by the Meerut Development Authority, under the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. With the intention & object of establishing Educational Institutions of all levels, i.e., from School level to Engineering, Medical and other higher Education, in the newly developed planned urban areas for imparting quality education to younger generation, the State Government issued a Government Order on 11.11.1986, containing directions to the Development Authorities that the plots of land of more than 6,000 sq. meters meant for Educational Institutions shall be allotted by the Development Authorities at the rate of 15% of the prevailing rates. As even after this concession, no good response was received by the Urban Development Authorities, the State Government further revised the aforesaid rates by reducing the rates from 15% to 50% of the prevailing rates vide Government Order dated 19.4.1996 to enable the Urban Development Authorities including Meerut Development Authority to attract individuals, Educational Societies and other Bodies to establish Institutions of Higher Education in the newly developed residential/commercial areas developed by the Urban Development authorities to benefit the residents of the newly developed Colonies/residential areas.
3. The Petitioner-society, Association of Management Studies, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, came forward to avail the offer of Meerut Development to establish three Institutes, namely, I.I.M.T. Management College, which imparts Education for awarding Degrees of M.B.A. and M.C.A., an Engineering College, imparting instructions for the courses of B.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Information Technology, Electronics and Computer Science and the third one for imparting education in Management studies. All these three Institutions were affiliated to U.P. Technical University, Lucknow and had the approval of All India Council of Technical Education, Ministry of Human Resources and Development, Government of India.
As is evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition, a Brochure issued by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut in the year 2001, the Meerut Development Authority had earmarked 79,000 Sq. Meters of land for allotment to Educational Institutions like Engineering Colleges, Management Institutes and institutes for Vocational studies etc. in Pocket 'O' and 'C of Ganga Nagar Scheme of the said Development Authority. The details of the plots of land situated in Ganga Nagar Scheme, Phase I, Pocket 'O' and 'C and area of Plots (including rate of Rs. 690 per Sq. Meter for the purposes of establishment of Engineering College) had been specifically indicated in the said Brochure. A detailed procedure of allotment/sale was also prescribed in this Brochure.
4. Meerut Development Authority initially invited tenders for 20,000 Sq. Meters of land, situated in the area in dispute, from various organisations desirous of opening a Technical College over the said land. After undergoing due process, the petitioner-society's tender was accepted for a sum of Rs. One crore 12 lacs for 20,000 Sq. Meters of land for the purposes of establishing a Technical/Engineering College. The lease deed was also duly executed and the petitioner-society had constructed a huge building over the demised land. Petitioner-society is presently running an Engineering College in the name and style of I.I.M. Engineering College and I.I.M.T. Management College where a large number of students are are pursuing their studies to earn their Degrees in various Technical Subjects.
After the first round of inviting applications for allotment of plots for educational purposes was over, the Meerut Development Authority again invited applications/tenders for allotment of two adjoining plots measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters lying appurtenant to the plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters already demised in favour of the petitioner-society. Since the said plots were situated just next to the land demised in favour of the petitioner-society and it was in the need of additional land for providing various other facilities to the students studying in the Engineering and Management Colleges, the petitioner-society, therefore, immediately responded to the Tender Notice and submitted its tender for allotment of the said two plots. The petitioner-society was deeply interested in buying both the plots measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters lying appurtenant to its already existing Institutions. The petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities and submitted its tenders for allotment of the said plots and submitted two separate tenders in the following manner considering the locations and nature of the plots:
(a) At the rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meter for the plot of land measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters.
(b) At the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter for the plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters.
The tender of Petitioner-society at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meter was accepted and the petitioner-society was allotted the plot of land measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters. The petitioner-society in pursuance thereof deposited the required amount, the price of the plot, within the stipulated period, i.e., on 26.11.2001. This plot was allotted to the petitioner-society and is in its possession.
As far as the tender of the petitioner-society for the remaining plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters situated next to the aforementioned plots measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters and 37,000 Sq. Meters already purchased by the petitioner-society for running the aforesaid Institutions is concerned, the petitioner-society offered rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. This offer of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter for purchasing the next plot measuring 20,000/- Sq. Meters was not accepted by the Meerut Development Authority without there being any valid reason.
5. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner-society, there was no other tender before the M.D.A. for the said piece of land at the relevant time, that is, in October, 2001, except the tender of petitioner. Admittedly the tender submitted by the petitioner-society was the only tender in this regard. On enquiry, the petitioner-society was informed that the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority had decided not to allot the said plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters for a price not less than Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-society drawn the attention of the Court that Plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters which was not allotted to the petitioner-society nor to any other person (as there was no other tender) lies between the two plots of land already allotted in favour of the petitioner for the purposes of constructing buildings over the said plots of land for running an Engineering College and other Institutions of higher studies. Huge buildings of the petitioner-society were existing on the adjacent plots. The petitioner was already in possession of a valid lease deed dated 7.8.2000. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-society has demonstrated before the Court by showing the Map, Master Plan of the area, locations of all the plots of land including two plots measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters already allotted in favour of the petitioner-society, the location of the disputed plot measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters, which was between the said two plots of petitioner-society.
6. As indicated above, the petitioner-society was highly interested in purchasing this Plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters because it was sandwiched between its two plots measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters. When the petitioner-society learnt that the Respondent- Meerut Development Authority is not ready to allot third plot to petitioner for a price less than Rs. 690/ per Sq. Meter, the petitioner vide its letter dated 4th March, 2002 made a specific offer to the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority that this plot may be allotted to it at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. The Petitioner-society was ready to deposit the whole amount at the said rate. The letter dated 4.3.2002 of the petitioner-society was duly received in the office of the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority on the same day. A copy of this letter has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which clearly shows that the petitioner-society was ready to deposit the demanded amount at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as indicated by the Meerut Development Authority. Till this date no one had made any offer to purchase the plot nor one could do so without taking part in the Tender proceedings held earlier.
7. While the petitioner's application dated 4.3.2002 was pending disposal, the petitioner learnt that Respondent-Meerut Development Authority was planning to allot the said plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters to private Colonisers, Builders and Developers for residential purposes. The petitioner was also informed that one Society claiming itself to be 'Officers Varg Avas Samiti1 had made an offer on 26.2.2002 for allotment of the said third plot at the rate of Rs. 775/- per Sq. Meter. This 'Officer Varg Avas Samiti' did not take part in the tender proceeding and as such this alleged offer could not have been entertained. No copy of the said alleged letter, said to have been submitted on 26.2.2002 by the 'Officers Varg Avas Samiti', was made available to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given an opportunity of mutual negotiation with Meerut Development Authority in this regard. It was indicated to the petitioner that the Board of Meerut Development Authority said to have taken a decision in a meeting on 15.3.2002 that it would develop the said land and after due publication and advertisement, the plot would be put to auction for establishing a residential colony. The petitioner immediately submitted a letter to Meerut Development Authority on 13.3.2002, giving reference of its earlier letter dated 4.3.2002, by which Meerut Development Authority was requested to allot the third Plot of land on the offered price of Rs. 690/- per. Sq. Meter. This letter was duly received by the office of the Meerut Development Authority on 13.3.2002. The Chairman of the petitioner-society personally met Vice Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority and apprised him that if the third plot is allotted to a private Coloniser, it would create a law and order problem for the Institute and the students studying therein and the academic atmosphere on the campus would be vitiated. The petitioner-society reiterated its demand vide letter dated 27.3.2002 for allotting the said plot at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. Since the tender of the petitioner-society for the said plot was the only tender, therefore, no prejudice would have been caused to any one. The petitioner-society had also agreed to pay the reserved price for the said plot. The Petitioner-society had also requested the Meerut Development Authority to carve out a plot measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters just appurtenant to the plot allotted earlier to the petitioner-society over which the building of Engineering College was in existence. This could have resulted in consolidation of the plots of the petitioner-society and enabled it to use it for educational purposes. It would not be appropriate to have a residential colony in the middle of the two plots on which Engineering College and other Institutions were running.
8. The Meerut Development Authority had issued an advertisement in Daily 'Amar Ujala1 News Paper on 15.4.2002. Through this advertisement, the plot of land lying in between the two plots already allotted to the petitioner was sought to be sold to private Cofonisers, Builders and Developers as bulk sale for residential purposes. The said plot of land was shown at Item No. l of the advertisement. Approximate area of the said plot was shown to be 22,000 Sq. Meters, while in the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2001, area of the said plot was shown to be 20,000 Sq. Meters. Item No. l of the advertisement was related to the same plot of land, which was put to sale through earlier advertisement in response to which the petitioner-society had submitted its tender.
9. The advertisement issued earlier had always shown these plots of land to be allotted for educational purposes. It was also indicated in the advertisement inserted in July/August, 2001 that the disputed plots of Ganga Nagar Scheme, Pocket 'C, Meerut and another Pocket, details of which were given in the advertisement, were meant for educational purposes only. There was no mention that these plots were meant for residential purposes and as such subsequent advertisement ought not to have been issued inviting tenders from private Builders, Colonisers and Developers for establishing residential colony over the plot which was meant for establishing educational institutions of higher studies. The land use of the plot measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was meant for construction of an Engineering College or other educational institutions of higher studies.
As per learned Counsel of the petitioner, the action of the Respondent No. l in issuing the advertisement for sale of the plot in question without considering the request of the petitioner for allotting the same to it at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter which was fixed as the reserved price or the alternative offer for shifting the two plots of land already allotted to the petitioner and for consolidating them into one is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that the reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority for the plot measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. The tender of the petitioner was the only tender. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner was prepared to pay the reserved price. Before closure of the allotment process initiated through the advertisement inserted in July/August, 2001, the petitioner vide its letters dated 4.3.2002, 13.3.2002 and 27.3.2002 expressed its willingness to Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority to make the payment of the plot at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meters. The petitioner was also ready to pay the interest over the said amount till the date of payment of the total price. In such circumstances, the plot of land reserved for establishing a technical institute, for opening an Engineering College or other Institutes of higher studies should have been allotted to the petitioner and the action of the Respondent No. l in proceeding to advertise the said plot of land for bulk sale to private Colonisers/Builders was an abuse of its statutory powers. The Respondent No. l could have accepted the alternative offer of the petitioner for consolidating the two plots of petitioner into one and other additional plot of 20,000 Sq. Meter, adjacent to the bigger plot of petitioner, could have been carved out for allotment to the petitioner-society.
11. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that according to the policy of the Government, the land was to be allotted to the Technical institutions at a concessional price. The decision to sell the plot was taken by the Meerut Development Authority at the instance of local powerful private Colonisers who were behind this move and the decision to sell the land by way of bulk sale was taken to benefit those private Colonisers, Builders and Developers with an ulterior motive and it was based on extraneous consideration.
In these compelling circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court which granted an interim order on 7.5.2002 directing that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 15.4.2002, the allotment may be made, but the same shall be subject to the decision in the writ petition and this fact shall be indicated in the allotment letter.
The auction was held on 2.8.2002 in which one Pawan Kumar Agrawal, petitioner in the connected Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007, Pawan Kumar Agrawal v. Meerut Development Authority was the highest bidder. He had offered rate of Rs. 1360/- per Sq. Meter and the total consideration at this rate was 3,00,30,000/-. Pawan Kumar Agrawal had deposited only initial sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- in 2002 and thereafter he had not deposited any isntalment and had seriously defaulted in making the payments. Pawan Kumar Agrawal has also approached this Court by filing a counter affidavit and an application for impleadment on 18.2.2005. The petitioner had filed its counter affidavit to the Impleadment Application rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit of Pawan Kumar Agrawal.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner demonstrated before the Court that Meerut Development Authority in its Supplementary Counter Affidavit sworn on 21.12.2004 and served on the petitioner on 17.10.2005 (filed in the Court on 21.12.2005) had supported the cause of Pawan Kumar Agrawal. It was deliberately concealed from the Court that Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal had not deposited any amount after making the initial deposit of Rs. 5,50,000/- as sale price for the plot in dispute. Due to deliberate default on the part of the Pawan Kumar Agrawal, his offer and tender including allotment had already stood cancelled as per the Terms and Condition of the advertisement contained in the advertisement dated 15.4.2002. The petitioner in its Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit filed on 9.11.2005 made a categorical statement that Pawan Kumar Agrawal had not made any payment to the Meerut Development Authority for over three years. The petitioner has learnt that right from finalisation of the tender proceeding to the year 2007, the Meerut Development Authority had kept on writing to Pawan Kumar Agrawal about his defaults.
The petitioner-society has again reiterated its offer on 9.11.2005 while filing its Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit that it was ready to pay the amount on which the land was auctioned by the Meerut Development Authority to the third party.
On 28.3.2007, the Meerut Development Authority issued a notice to Pawan Kumar Agrawal for cancellation of the auction result in his favour on account of the fact that this Court vide order dated 7.5.2002 had not restrained the parties from making and receiving the payments for the plot in dispute. Despite this notice, Pawan Kumar Agrawal had been continuously avoiding and defaulting in making full and final payment of the sale price of the plot and, therefore, Pawan Kumar Agrawal had lost his claim over the plot due to his default in making payment as per the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement dated 15.4.2002 It was highlighted before the Court that the Meerut Development Authority did not bring on record the defaults committed by Pawan Kumar Agrawal. The matter was heard on 8.5.2007. The petitioner filed a Supplementary Affidavit annexing copy of the aforementioned show cause notice dated 28.3.2007 issued to Pawan Kumar Agrawal for cancellation of the auction held in his favour due to non-payment of the dues by him.
12. This Court taking note of the above facts had passed an order on 8.5.2007, directing the Vice Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority to explain, on affidavit, ambiguities and change of stand as regards the rate as well as purpose/land use and also produce all the records. Court also directed the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority to explain as to why no action had been taken against Pawan Kumar Agrawal for cancelling the auction in his favour inspite of non-payment of dues by him. The matter was fixed for 21.5.2007. The order passed on 8.5.2007 is being quoted below:
We have heard Sri Pradeep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar and Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. l and Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pranav Ojha for respondent No. 2.
The Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut is directed to file his own affidavit stating therein as to what he means by the Astrix Note in advertisement issued by Meerut Development Authority (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) which reads as under:
¹ uksV & bathfu;fjax dkyst gsrq 200000-00 oxZ ehVj dh Hkwfe dh 50 izfr'kr vkjf{kr nj :i;s 690@& izfr oxZ ehVj fufonk gsrq fu/kkZfjr gS A The Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority shall also state in his affidavit that the rate of plot of 37000 Sq. Meters ear-marked for Engineering College was fixed Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter and for adjacent plots to plot of 20,000 Sq. Meters which were not for Engineering College the rate was reserved Rs. 690/- per sq. meter as mentioned in the aforesaid note. He shall further clearly state in the affidavit that out of 37000 sq. meters land, which has been allotted to the petitioner for Engineering College, whether it has been given to the Engineering College at the rate of Rs. 500/ per sq. meter. He shall also explain in the affidavit that when the respondent No. 2 Pawan Kumar Agrawal has deposited only earnest money then why his allotment was not cancelled by the Meerut Development Authority and whether the earnest money could be forfeited by the Meerut Development Authority? Though the notice dated 28.3.2007 has been given by the Meerut Development Authority but no action has been taken on it. He shall also explain that when the land was ear-marked for education purpose then how the land use has been changed to housing purpose that too on an application of a private individual society which has offered to purchase the land for a sum of Rs. 775/- per sq. meter, whereas as per the rule of the respondent the price of the land would be much more. In the advertisement issued by the Meerut Development Authority where the land in dispute was advertised for housing purpose and reserved price of Rs. 885/- per sq. meter was fixed then how ultimately it has been auctioned for Rs. 1365/- per sq. meter, whereas if for educational institution 50% reserved price was fixed Rs. 690/- then full price at that time ought to have been 1380/- then it itself demonstrate that the authority has fixed much lower reserved price and had auctioned it on a much lower price for which the land was reserved for educational purpose. When on both the sides of the plot of petitioner Engineering College and educational institution are running then why the Meerut Development Authority has converted the land use from educational to housing purpose. All the relevant concerning records shall also be produced on the date fixed.
List on 21st May 2007 as first case.
The copy of the affidavit to be sworn by Vice-Chairman, Meerut, Development Authority, Meerut shall be served on the counsel for the petitioner by 19th May, 2007.
Certified copy of this order shall be given to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges.
13. On 11/14th May, 2007, the Meerut Development Authority had cancelled the auction in favour of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and despatched the order to him with copies to all the concerned persons. The Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority had filed another supplementary counter affidavit in compliance to the High Court's order dated 8.5.2007, bringing on record the cancellation order passed against Pawan Kumar Agrawal.
Pawan Kumar Agrawal had also filed a supplementary affidavit in this Court indicating therein that he had paid Rs. 54,56,000/- to the Meerut Development Authority by Bank Drafts on 14/15 May, 2007. He had also filed Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007 during summer vacations challenging the order of cancellation of allotment dated 14.5.2007 of the plot.
14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that in the Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007, Pawan Kumar Agrawal has not mentioned that there existed an order dated 8.5.2007 passed by the High Court. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, in fact, has misrepresented before the High Court by mentioning the date of order as 17.5.2007. This writ petition has also come up for hearing alongwith the present petition.
It is relevant to mention that this case had come up for hearing on 7th September, 2007. During the arguments, the Court has taken note of various contradictions made in the averments contained in various counter affidavits filed by the Meerut Development Authority. The Meerut Development Authority has taken different stands in its counter affidavit of various dates. When this case came up for hearing on 7th September, 2007, the Court passed the following order:
We have gone through the second supplementary counter affidavit filed by Sri Upendra Narayan Thakur, Vice-chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut and in part of para 9 it has been stated as under:
...The Board has only relaxed the land use from higher use i.e. residential to lower land i.e. educational use....
It had been stated that the Board has only relaxed the land use from higher use i.e. residential to lower land use i.e. educational. No date of resolution have been mentioned in the paragraph. The resolution extracted does not demonstrate that any relaxation has been granted in the land use, from higher use to lower use. The Vice-Chairman is directed to file resolution of the Board by which the land had been changed from higher land use residential to lower land use -educational.
Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has further argued that asterisk marked in advertisement filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition has wrongly been marked and the rate of 20,000 or 22,000 sq. meter of land was Rs. 690/- per sq. meter and not the 50% of the reserved price Rs. 690/- per sq. meter.
It is strange that the sector rate for 37,000 sq. meter of land was Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter and it was sold on the same rate to petitioner's institution with relaxation in rates as per government order applicable to educational institutions whereas with regard to the adjacent plot though the sector rate would be according to Mr. Dayal Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter but the Meerut Development Authority has fixed reserved price of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter only. For a larger area of 37,000 sq. meter in a bulk sale it has been sold as a price of Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter and since it was given to an engineering college therefore 50% rate was charged.
The Meerut Development Authority is directed to produce the calculations of rates of all the three plots from the date of acquisition, and explain that in what manner the rates have been fixed differently for three adjacent plots in the same area alongwith affidavit of the Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairman shall further explain in his affidavit as to whether the assertions made in para 11 and 12 of the second supplementary counter affidavit that the asterisk put in the advertisement 50% reserved price mentioning Rs. 690/- was a mistake, is correct or not. In case the affidavit is not filed, the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority then shall remain present on the date fixed.
Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the supplementary counter affidavit would be filed by 20th September, 2007 and the copy of it would be served to Sri M.K. Gupta, Advocate on or before 20th September, 2007. Supplementary rejoinder affidavit may be filed within 48 hours thereafter.
List on 24th September, 2007.
16. The Meerut Development Authority has changed its stand. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for contesting parties, the following order was passed by this Court on 24.9.2007 to reach at a just and proper conclusion in the matter:
We have heard Sri Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Ajai Kumar and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
We have gone through the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit filed by Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut. At page 46 of the writ petition vide letter dated 26.11.2001 sent by the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut dated 26.11.2001 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) he had informed the petitioner that the decision had been taken by the Vice Chairman that out of 57,000 sq. meters of land, reserved for educational purposes, 37,000 sq. meters of land is being allotted to the petitioner. The Vice Chairman is directed to file the document by which 57,000 sq. meters of land was available for educational purposes in the year 2001 which was advertised on 18.8.2001 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). This document clearly mentions that 37,000 and 20,000 sq. meters of land are to be auctioned for use of Engineering College. The Vice Chairman shall file his affidavit alongwith supportive annexures and further explain that when two plots were already sold for the purpose of Engineering College, the first plot of 20,000 sq. meters in the year 2000 and the second plot of 37,000 sq. meters in 2001, to the petitioner's institution, then the plot of 20,000 sq. meters, which was in between the two plots in what circumstances was converted to be sold for housing purposes when it was reserved for use by Engineering College as mentioned in Annexure-3 and 4 to the writ petition.
From the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Meerut Development Authority, Meerut sworn on 25.7.2002 by Sri Anil Raj Kumar son of late Sri Rajendra Kumar who was working as Secretary in Meerut Development Authority he has stated in paras No. 11 and 18 that letter of the petitioner offering the rate of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter was received in the office of the development authority after the Board's meeting held on 15.3.2002. The letter of the petitioner was received in the office of development authority on 16.3.2002. Prima facie this statement of fact made in paras No. 11 and 18 of the counter affidavit appears to be false as the development authority has filed alongwith the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit the minutes of 64th Board Meeting dated 15.3.2002 of the Meerut Development Authority as Annexure-i to the 3rd supplementary counter affidavit wherein in agenda No. 29 it has been stated that the petitioner's Chairman has made a request by letter dated 4.3.2002 that earlier they could not take the land at the rate of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter due to shortage of funds but now they are ready and willing to take the plot at the rate of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter. The copy of the letter dated 4.3.2002 has already been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition which at the bottom left hand side shows that it had been received in the office of development authority on 13.3.2002. Sri Anil Raj Kumar must explain his conduct and put forth his version.
Issue notice to Sri Anil Raj Kumar son of late Sri Rajendra Kumar, the then Secretary, Meerut Development Authority now posted as Additional Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Shastri Nagar, Meerut to show cause as to why proceedings may not be initiated against him for filing false affidavit before this Court and he shall further show cause as to why his public accountability may not be fixed by this Court. We have not appreciated the manner in which the Vice Chairman has filed his affidavit and he has not brought correct facts and has not given a proper reply to the queries of the Court. He may do so by filing another supplementary counter affidavit. Sri Anil Raj Kumar shall appear before this Court on 5.10.2007 and file his affidavit.
We further direct the Vice Chairman to file the relevant master plan as Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated from the master plan that the plot purchased by him in the year 2000 was shown as land earmarked for educational purpose, even in the mater plan of 2002 which has been supplied to the petitioner alongwith Meerut Master Plan 2021 distributed by Meerut Development Authority. The status of the plots in the area remains the same. The Vice Chairman shall also produce the master plan of 2001 and 2021 and explain how the mater plan of 2002 which is part of the master plan 2021 shows the plot purchased by the petitioner in the 2000 only is being utilized for educational purposes and in what circumstances in the coloured master plan the other plots earmarked for educational purposes and commercial purposes have been shown. There are contradictions in the maps provided with Meerut Master Plan. 2021.
The Vice Chairman is directed to depute the Chief Town Planner, Meerut Development Authority to appear before the Court on 5.10.2007 and produce the record relating to master plan and its preparation. He shall explain how in different master plan different areas have been shown to be reserved for educational purposes, residential purposes and commercial purposes. The Chief Town Planner shall also file his affidavit explaining the master plans and the difference in various master plans. List/put up this matter on 5.10.2007 at 10.00 a.m.
19. Another affidavit was filed by the Meerut Development Authority putting-forth another version. The counter affidavit filed by the Chief Town Planner of the Meerut Development Authority was taken on record. The Court has taken note of the affidavit filed by Sri Anil Raj Kumar, who at the relevant time was working as Secretary of the Meerut Development Authority, presently working as Additional Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evem Vikas Parishad. The affidavit filed by the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority was also taken on record.
20. Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has made detailed submissions before this Court laying emphasis on several points. As per learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner there existed a concluded contract between the parties. In the present case, an advertisement to sell the plot in dispute measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters sandwiched between the two plots of petitioner-society was issued on 18.8.2001. The petitioner was the only bidder, who had deposited its bid with the earnest money in August, 2001. The petitioner had made a clear offer vide its letters dated 4.3.2002, 13.3.2002 and 27.3.2002 categorically submitting therein that it was ready to pay Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as demanded by the Meerut Development Authority. The Meerut Development Authority had fixed Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter reserved price and this was indicated in the letter dated 3.9.2001 sent to the petitioner. Initially this price was not suitable to the petitioner, however, subsequently the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter to the Meerut Development Authority. The petitioner society had accepted the offer vide its letter dated 4.3.2002. The contract was duly reached between the parties which became final and was binding on the parties. This concluded contract deserved to be enforced by adequate relief of mandamus which could be granted in the present set of circumstances.
21. The Meerut Development Authority was not empowered to change the land use of the land in dispute. The Meerut Development Authority has categorically admitted in the initial advertisement and correspondence etc. that the land in dispute was meant for educational purposes of establishing Engineering College and Institutes of higher studies etc. This submission of the petitioner is founded on the fact that the Meerut Development Authority had admitted the need of the petitioner to allot the disputed plot for setting up an educational institution (Engineering Institution). This was legally and wholly compatible with such land use and it was also capable of legal and valid implementation by means of the necessary alterations being carried out by the competent authority as has been done in the case of adjoining plots measuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters already allotted to the petitioner. Even if it was treated that the land use of the said plot became residential, a plot of land measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters could have been carved out from the land already available with the Meerut Development Authority which was adjacent to the petitioner's plots.
22. As far as public interest is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case when there were already educational institutions in existence, a commercial market was also established on the two sides of the disputed plots, the plot in dispute was sandwiched in between the two plots already allotted to the petitioner-society, the decision of the alleged insistence of the Meerut Development Authority to allow the disputed plot for use of group housing and residential purposes was wholly in breach of public interest from both the points of view, that is, Educational Institutions as well as prospective residents of the proposed group housing scheme proposed on the plot. The plot ought to have been continued to be meant available for the use of educational institution. It was in the larger interest of a large student community studying in the aforementioned institutions run and managed by the petitioner-society.
23. There was imminent need of the petitioner-society for expansion of the Educational Institutions established at the insistence of the Meerut Development Authority when there were no takers of the land in the said Ganga Nagar Scheme. In the present case, the Meerut Development Authority has not conducted any enquiry nor produced any material or even pleaded and established that it has arrived at a conclusion that in the developed area of the Meerut Development Authority there was surplusage of institutions of higher studies or there was acute shortage of group housing that is why Meerut Development Authority could not allot the disputed plot for educational purposes and why the Meerut Development Authority had suddenly started feeling need that the land use of plot measuring 20,000 Sq. Meters meant for educational purposes, sandwiched between the two plots already to the petitioner for running educational institutions, may be changed for residential purposes or group housing.
24. In the present case there was an accepted and admitted need of the petitioner for the disputed plot of land for expansion of its already existing Educational Institutions. This need could not have been sub-served by any other plot of land allotted elsewhere. The action of the Meerut Development Authority in not allotting the plot in dispute, at the reserved agreed price of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meters at the relevant time, was wholly unfair, unjust and unreasonable and it was a case of complete non-application of mind on the part of the Meerut Development Authority.
25. Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has further submitted that although the insistence of Meerut Development Authority of charging higher rate of the disputed plot meant for educational purpose at Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter was wholly whimsical, irrational and contrary to the Government Orders, even then the petitioner had made written offer to pay Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter for the said plot much before the Board's meeting held on 15.3.2002. It appears from the record that in the minutes the Board had recommended the for allotment of the plot at the rate of Rs. 690 per Sq. Meter (reserved price of the plot), but ignoring the offer of the petitioner, an arbitrary and illegal decision was taken for auctioning the plot for group housing, for entirely different purpose.
26. The decision of the Board taken on 15.3.2002, has been assailed on various grounds. The Meerut Development Authority, an Expert Body, had acted illegally in permitting itself to be influenced by an alleged wholly extraneous unsubstantiated higher offer for group housing receiving from a alleged entity, namely, Officers Varg Awas Samiti. This Samiti was a stranger to the tender/auction proceedings and had no locus standi. It appears that some interested persons in the Meerut Development Authority had introduced this Officers Varg Awas Samiti theory to defeat the petitioner's case. Neither there was any advertisement nor any invitation or proposal to establish a housing project on the plot meant for educational purpose that too at a time when case of the petitioner was being considered in pursuance of the an advertisement inserted in the News Paper for allotment of the disputed plot for educational purpose.
Strange theory put-forth by the Meerut Development Authority that its Board took a decision to allow a group housing on the plot when the Board passed a resolution dated 15.3.2002 on the basis of alleged offer of Officers Awas Varg Awas Samiti was incredible. The alleged offer or intention of the alleged Society to purchase the land could not have been believed to be true and correct, particularly, in the absence of any credible material, viz., copy of the offer of the alleged Officers Varg Awas Samiti. No reasons were also assigned in the Board's resolution to support such incredible theory. In fact, there was no genuine bonafide and honest offer to purchase the land and the whole exercise was carried out to oust the petitioner from consideration and the the allotment process.
27. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in alternative, has submitted that the petitioner's request for raising the offer was duly received before 15.3.2002. Even if the offer of the petitioner alleged to have been received on 16.3.2002, as indicated in the supplementary counter affidavits, the Board of Meerut Development Authority had got enough time to consider the offer of the petitioner, before the impugned advertisement dated 15.4.2002 was issued. There was one month's time left in between the issuance of advertisement and the receipt of the offer of the petitioner during the petitioner's offer could have been considered and appropriate orders ought to have been passed keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was ready to pay the reserved price of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as demanded by the Meerut Development Authority.
28. The Meerut Development Authority is a statutory body established with statutory objectives. It must have considered the accepted and admitted developmental needs in favour of the petitioner's educational institutions and would have reconvened a meeting of the Board and would have passed resolution again in favour of the educational needs to be felt by the residents of the newly developing area. It should have restored its earlier decision to auction the plot for educational purpose for which 57,000 Sq. Meters of land was made available at the time of issuance of advertisement. The failure of the Meerut Development Authority to do so rendered its decision whimsical, arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified. The action of the Meerut Development Authority was contrary to the tenet of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and as such the impugned advertisement for grouphousing was wholly illegal and bacfin law.
29. Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has laid emphasis on the submission that the Meerut Development Authority could not have been swayed by the idea of having more financial gains. The financial gain cannot be the sole reason for taking decision by the Development Authorities, but the objective of Meerut Development Authority to allot the land for the development of the area under the Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The altered decision of the Meerut Development Authority to abandon well considered and felt educational need and rigid approach to group housing purposes over the disputed plot on account of higher financial offers coming from a private Coloniser is in total breach of the statutory objectives and the very purpose for which the Development Authorities had been established under the said Act. Such decision is against the settled principles of law, arbitrary, malafide and bad in law. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa and the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 3252, Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda to strengthen his case.
30. No opportunity of mutual negotiation was afforded to the petitioner when the petitioner had already put-forth its offer with the commencement of allotment process of the plot in dispute and continued to do so by its offer dated 3.1.2001, 4.3.2002 and 13.3.2002 for purchasing the plot at the demanded price whereas the alleged Officers Varg Awas Samiti was totally stranger to the allotment process/tender proceedings. Thus, the Meerut Development Authority must have responded to the request of the tenderer-petitioner. Denial to the petitioner of any opportunity to respond and refusal to respondent to the repeated offers of the petitioner for making allotment at the rate of the post advertisement bid of Respondent No. 2 by way of mutual negotiation was wholly contrary to the principles of natural justice. The action of the Respondent No. 2 denying the opportunity of mutual negotiation to the tenderer and dealing with a stranger to the auction proceedings wholly contrary to the settled principles of law, unfair and unjustified. The silence of the Meerut Development Authority and its refusal on the offer of the petitioner alongwith its readiness to pay uptodate interest upon the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter or even the amount at which the plot was auctioned in favour of Respondent No. 2 indicates foul play and is wholly illegal and unjustified. The Respondent No. 2-Pawan Kumar Agrawal had no locus standi to contest the petitioner's case as he has no concern with the merits of the petitioner's case, which was filed in the year 2002. Respondent No. 2 is a chronic defaulter in view of the Meerut Development Authority's own notice served upon him.
31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also taken the Court to various contradictory statements made by the Meerut Development Authority in its counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavits etc. He has highlighted the following contradictory and incorrect statements made in the pleadings of the Meerut Development Authority:
In paras 11 and 18 of the original Counter affidavit filed by the Meerut Development Authority on 25.7.2002, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner's acceptance of the M.D.A's offer @ Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter reached the Meerut Development Authority much too late on 16.3.2002 at a time when the Board of the Meerut Development Authority had already taken the decision to allot the disputed plot to another person for another purpose on 15.3.2002. It is on this basis that the Meerut Development Authority has in its counter affidavit sought to avoid the event of contract having been concluded between the parties and the consequences thereof. Thereby the Meerut Development Authority has tried to mislead this Court on the basic facts.
However, from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board dated 15.3.2002 filed as Annexure SCA 1 alongwith the 3rd Supplementary Counter Affidavit filed by the Meerut Development Authority on 19.9.2002, it is more than clear that the Meerut Development Authority had not only received the acceptance of the petitioner dated 4.3.2002 well before the date of the Board's meeting, i.e., on 15.3.2002, but, in fact, it is precisely in view of the said acceptance by the petitioner that the meeting of the Board had been convened only in order to consider the said acceptance.
32. Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that in view of the offer and acceptance exchanged between the parties, it was not open to the Board to avoid the contract arrived at between them and to take any decision or pass any resolution seeking to re-allot the disputed plot in favour of any other party and/or for any other purpose. In view of these facts, the decision and resolution of the Board dated 15.3.2002 is patently illegal and void. It deserves to be quashed alongwith all further proceedings, advertisements, contracts etc. undertaken by the Meerut Development Authority.
33. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the point of equity has submitted that had the truth of the acceptance of the petitioner's offer having been received by the Meerut Development Authority been correctly stated by the Meerut Development Authority in its original counter affidavit filed as early as on 25.7.2002, the present writ petition would have been accordingly decided at that time itself and the petitioner would not have been put to the loss and sufferings during the period of more than five years of pendency of the litigation in this Court. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition itself, the petitioner had already submitted that it is ready to pay interest on the amount payable at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. The petitioner still adheres to that commitment and shall abide by the same. In view of these facts, on the ground of equity also, the petitioner deserves to get the reliefs sought for from this Court under its writ jurisdiction. Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, has summed up with the submission that in such matter judicial review can be made by the Court. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1983) 3 SCC 37, Gujarat State Financial Copn. v. Lotus Hotel (, Mahabir Auto Stores v. IOC (1991) 1 SCC 21, Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. , Sterling Computers v. M & N Publication (2001) 2 SCC 160, LIC of India v. Asha Goel , ABL International v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India , Popcorn Entertainment v. CIDCO , Hirday Narain v. ITO, Bareilly and , The C & A General v. K.S. Jagannathan and also taken the Court to various paragraphs of Judicial Review & Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 5th Edition (1995) (Paras 3030, 3-031 [P.173], 3-042, 3-043 [P. 178-179], 6-036, 6-037 [p.315-316]) in support of his case.
34. Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority, has strongly resisted the writ petition. He based his submission on the counter affidavits filed on 17.2.2002, 185.2007 and other supplementary counter affidavits filed as per directions of the Court contained in the orders of different dates.
In the first counter affidavit filed by the Meerut Development Authority on 17.7.2007, it has stated that the disputed land, that is the Plot of 20,000 Sq. Meters was not earmarked for establishing an Engineering College as the said plot of land was reserved for residential purposes. In Paragraphs 9 and 11 of the original counter affidavit of the Meeruti Development Authority, it has been stated by the said Authority that the petitioner submitted his tender for allotment at the specified rate/offer of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. The said tender was for business purposes whereas the land in dispute was to be used for residential purposes, the minimum rate of which as fixed by the Meerut Development Authority was Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. In fact, the petitioner made an offer of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter which was not accepted by the Meerut Development Authority. On the contrary, the Officers Varg Awas Samiti, B-19, Canal Colony, Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut had made an offer for the same land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters at the rate of Rs. 775/- per Sq. Meters. On the basis of this offer, the Board took a decision in its meeting dated 15.3.2002 that the Meerut Development Authority would develop the said land and after due publication and advertisement it would be disposed of through open tender/auction for residential purposes as this was a residential plot for residential colony.
35. Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel for the Meerut Development Authority, has denied that the petitioner agreed to pay the reserved price of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. The petitioner did not agree to the reserved price, despite the letter dated 3.9.2001 sent by the O.S.D., Meerut Development Authority. On the contrary the petitioner had offered the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter for the plot in dispute. This offer was not accepted as Meerut Development Authority had fixed Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as reserved price for the plot in question which was meant for residential purposes. The Meerut Development Authority had acted justly and fairly in dealing with the matter of the petitioner. The tender of the petitioner was rejected after the Board's meeting held on 15.3.2002. The petitioner had submitted its letter on 15.3.2002 in the office of the Meerut Development Authority which was received on 16.3.2002. There was over-writing and cutting on the date of the letter and petitioner has made manipulations in the letter which was, in fact, submitted after the decision of the Board.
36. The Officers Varg Awas Samiti had already made an offer of Rs. 775/- per Sq. Meter on 26.2.2002, which has persuaded the Meerut Development Authority to call the meeting of the Board on 15.3.2002. In Paragraphs 12,15, 16, 17, 18 and 22 of the counter affidavit the Meerut Development Authority had reiterated its earlier stand that the disputed plot had always been earmarked for residential purposes. As the petitioner was not ready to pay even the minimum reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority, the Board of the Meerut Development Authority decide the plot to some other person. The Meerut Development Authority was empowered to dispose of the plot through open and public tender/auction. The plots of land which were originally allotted to the petitioner were of different category of land. Both the plots allotted to the petitioner were for educational purposes whereas the land in dispute was meant for residential purposes. According to rules, all the lands could not be mixed or amalgamated together nor could be clubbed together. In Paragraph-18 of the counter affidavit, it has been indicated by the Respondent-Development Authority that since the petitioner gave his letter of offer of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter at a later stage and before receiving this letter the Board had already taken a decision to dispose of the plot in question, the petitioner's offer to pay Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter already stood rejected and thereby petitioner's tender also stood rejected in view of the resolution passed by the Board in its meeting dated 15.3.2002. The petitioner had no right to maintain the writ petition. The plot in dispute was never reserved for commercial purpose or for educational purposes. The petitioner was not entitled to get land at his sweet will or at his choice or at the rate of his discretion.
37. In the supplementary counter affidavits filed on 18.5.2007 and thereafter in the subsequent counter affidavits, the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority had tried to improve its case by submitting that in the Ganga Nagar Scheme of the Meerut Development Authority, 37,000 Sq. Meters of land was earmarked for educational purposes and adjacent land admeasuring 42,000 Sq. Meters was earmarked for residential purposes in the Master Plan of 2001 of Meerut. The petitioner's institute applied for land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters for expansion of its Engineering College and construction of the Hostel. Considering the request of the petitioner, land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was allotted to the petitioner by the Board of the Meerut Development Authority vide its meeting dated 21.10.1999. The reserved price for the said plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was fixed on the basis of bulk sale rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. This bulk sale rate was calculated and arrived at by adding the external development charges, surcharges, administrative charges, acquisition cost and the accrued interest on the loan taken from HUDCO for acquiring the land.
38. It was admitted in various Paragraphs of the supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner took part in the auction proceeding and submitted his tender alongwith others which were opened on 11.11.1999. His tender rate was found at the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter which was accepted and the land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was allotted to the petitioner on 12.5.2000. Similarly, the land admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meters at the rate of 50% of the sector rate of Rs. 1000/- per Sq. Meter, that is, at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meter was allotted tot the petitioner. A further allotment was also made to the petitioner on 27.11.2001 after following auction proceeding and considering the tender of the petitioner.
39. As far as the disputed plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters is concerned, the petitioner submitted his tender offering the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. This rate offered by the petitioner was less than the reserved price of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. In view of this fact, the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority declined to accept the tender, the offered rate of which was below the reserved price. Further vide a letter dated 3.9.2001, the Meerut Development Authority enquired from the petitioner whether petitioner was prepared to give his consent to purchase the plot at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter for establishing an Engineering College. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner vide his letter dated 19.9.2001 informed the Development Authority that the rate of 690/- per Sq. Meter was not viable for it and requested its withdrawal from the offer.
40. Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority, has taken the Court to Annexure-1 to the supplementary counter affidavit, which was a copy of the petitioner's letter submitted on 17.9.2001. The said letter reads as follows:
To OSD M.D.A. Meerut.
Sir, Please refer your letter No. 5980, Dt. 03-09-2001.
It is requested to kindly allot us 37000 Sq. Mtr. Of land for which we have quoted Rs. 500/- Per Sq. mtr.
Other land of 20000 Sq. mt. May be deleted from our offer as the cost of that land is not viable for us. However, we are ready to purchase the same at the rate of Rs. 560/- Per Sq. mtr., as quoted by us which is the same rate as we have already purchased the part of that land @ Rs. 560/-:
Thanking you, Sd/-
[YOGESH MOHAN GUPTA] Chairman Date : 17.9.2001 From the above letter, it is clear that though the petitioner had walked out from the deal, but it has indicated in the last paragraph of the said letter that the Association/petitioner was ready to purchase the same land at the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter as quoted by it which was the same rate on which the part of the land was purchased earlier.
Since the reserved price was not received in the tender, the Board in its meeting dated 15.3.2002 had cancelled the tender of the petitioner. In the subsequent supplementary counter affidavits, the similar pleas were taken as were taken in the original counter affidavit.
41. It was further submitted by Sri B. Dayal that the land use could only be changed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Board of the Meerut Development Authority. The Board has only relaxed the land use from higher use, that is, residential to lower land use, that is, educational use. Later on, the Meerut Development Authority had received higher offer of Rs. 885/- per Sq. Meter and in the subsequent auction, the highest tender received was for Rs. 1365/- per Sq. Meter. Considering this offer, the land in dispute was allotted to Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who is petitioner is Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007.
The Meerut Development Authority had complied with the orders passed by this Court on 7.5.2002. The allotment order was issued in favour of Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who was highest bidder, but this allotment was subject to final decision of this writ petition.
42. Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel for the Meerut Development Authority, has further submitted that as far as allotment made in favour of Pawan Kumar Agrawal is concerned, since he had deposited initial amount only and failed to deposit the total consideration of the plot in dispute within the stipulated period, a show cause notice was issued to him and lateron the allotment order was cancelled vide order dated 11.5.2007. This cancellation order dated 11.5.2007 is subject matter of dispute in Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007 filed by Pawan Kumar Agrawal. Pawan Kumar Agrawal had sent some amount by the Speed Post after cancellation of his allotment, but this amount was returned to him by the Speed Post. Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal was a defaulter and he did not deposit the Auction money, price of land within time. After affording opportunity of hearing issuing a show cause notice the allotment of Plot was cancelled. He has defended the action of the Meerut Development Authority.
43. Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel for the Meerut Development Authority, laid much emphasis on the fact that the land use of the plot in dispute was always residential not educational. The education use being lower use than that of the residnetial use and, therefore, the Meerut Development Authority had validly given permission for sale of the plots to the petitioner. Even in the Master Plan of 2001, the land use of the plot in dispute has not been changed.
The Respondent-Meerut Development Authority has also filed other supplementary counter affidavit in compliance of this Court's order passed on 8.5.2007. In this supplementary counter affidavit, the main stand taken by the Meerut Development Authority earlier has been reiterated. It has been tried to explain to the Court as to why contradictory statements were made in the counter affidavits. The Meerut Development Authority has, in fact, filed better particulars in support of its earlier version and defended its Officers, who had earlier made contradictory statements before this Court regarding status of the land and the procedure followed by the Meerut Development Authority in accepting and rejecting the tender of the petitioner.
44. The main thrust in the counter affidavits filed by the Meerut Development Authority was that the petitioner did not offer the reserved price and was not prepared to pay the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as demanded by the Meerut Development Authority in its letter dated 3.9.2001, hence petitioner was not entitled for allotment of plot in dispute as petitioner was not even willing to pay the minimum reserved price. There was not illegality or infirmity in the action of the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority. Respondent-Meerut Development Authority acted justly and fairly in dealing with the case of the petitioner. However, no case law has been cited by the learned Counsel for the Meerut Development Authority in support of his case.
45. We have considered the arguments of learned Counsel for the contesting parties and carefully perused the relevant materials brought by the Meerut Development Authority, site plan map of the area, details of the Scheme, Auction notices and Master Plans etc. The Court has also carefully gone through the submission made in the writ petition, original counter affidavit filed in the year 2002, various supplementary counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavit filed by the contesting parties in response to the various orders passed by the Court.
When the case was taken up for final hearing by the Court, the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority was directed to file its affidavit to reply to the specific queries put-forth by the Court during arguments as there were allegations of concealment and misrepresentation before the Court. The concerned Authorities of the Meerut Development Authority were directed to explain as to why contradictory statements have been made before the Court as is evident from various orders of the Court. The Court required the Meerut Development Authority to clarify and explain as to how contradictions appeared in its pleadings. Why the stand taken in the year 2007 at the stage of final hearing is different from the original case set out in the counter affidavit filed in the year 2002. All the affidavits are on record, the same have been perused.
46. emerges from the record that the petitioner-society is a registered Society and is involved in imparting higher education, i.e., Technical Education, Engineering, Electronics, Computer Science, Business Management and Hotel Management etc. to the students. There existed a special scheme to encourage establishment of Institutions of higher education, primary and secondary education in the developing urban areas in various Cities of Uttar Pradesh. The policy of the State Government was spelt out in the Government Order issued on 11.11.1986 and thereafter on 19.4.1996 by which the Government while exercising its power under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 had issued directions to the Urban Development Authorities and Local Bodies that the plots of land of more than 6,000 Sq. Meters meant for educational Institutions shall be allotted by the Development Authorities and Local Bodies at 15% of the prevailing rates. Further, this concession was enhanced from 15% to 50% of the prevailing rates by subsequent Government Order issued on 19.4.1996. The petitioner-society was given advantage of this policy and it was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters in Ganga Nagar Housing Scheme, Pocket 'O', Phase I in the City of Meerut. This first plot was situated on a 100 Meter wide road in a vast area to be developed as a residential area where availability of Educational Institutions would have been a prime need of the residents of the area. A lease deed for 90 years for the first plot to the petitioner was executed in favour of the petitioner on 7.6.2000 by the Meerut Development Authority for a consideration of Rs. 1.12 crores.
47. On 18.8.2001, an advertisement was inserted by the Meerut Development Authority in the local News papers calling for tenders/offers for allotting/selling two adjoining plots for the purposes of establishing an Engineering Institute and in addition to this several other plots were also to be sold for opening other Educational Institutions in the aforesaid Ganga Nagar Scheme.
esjB fodkl izkf/kdj.k esjB dh xaxkuxj] 'krkCnh] j{kkiqje] fMQSal ,Udyso] iYyoiqje] lSfud fogkj] yksfg;k uxj J)kiqjh vkoklh; ;kstukvks ds vUrZxr f'k{k.k laLFkkvks ulZjh ,oa izkbZejh Ldwy twfu;j gkbZLdwy o gkbZLdwy @ b.Vj dkyst @ fMxzh dkyst @ iksLV xzst,V @ eSusteesaV baLVhV;wV @ bathfu;fjax dkyst dh LFkkiuk ds fy, 'kSf{kd Hkw[k.Mksa ds iathdj.k gsrq fufonk Mkyus dh frfFk 18&8&2001 le; & izkr% 11-00 ls vijkUg 2-00 ctsa rd LFkku fo'ks"k dk;Zf/kdkjh dk;kyZ;
Hkw[k.Mks dk fooj.k ,oa orZeku izpfyr njas
dza-l-a ;kstuk dk uke vuqekfur {ks=Qy Hkwiz;ksx orZeku izpfyr njsa
1- xaxkuxj Qst-1 37]000 bathfu;fjax dkyst 1000 @&
20]000
uksV& bathfu;fjax dkyst gsrq 200000-00 oxZehVj dh Hkwfe dh 50 izfr'kr vkjf{kr nj :i;s 690@& izfr oxZ ehVj fufonk gsrq fu/kkZfjr gS A The details of the Plots were as under:
Area Prevailing Rate (i) 37,000 Sq. Meters on one side Rs. 1000/- per sq. meter (ii) 20000 Sq. Meters on the other side Rs. 690/- per sq. meter
In response to the said advertisement, it is admitted to the parties that in August, 2001, the petitioner applied for both the aforesaid plots and it had offered rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meter (as 50°|o of the prevailing rate was applicable to the Educational Institutions) and Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter for the other Plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters. It is also undisputed that the tender of the petitioner was the only tender, who was deeply interested in purchasing the plot as the same was sandwiched in between the first two plots already allotted to the petitioner. A letter was issued by the O.S.D., Meerut Development Authority on 3.9.2001 indicating therein that if the petitioner was interested to purchase the plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meters, he could submit his offer for allotment. The O.S.D., Meerut Development Authority had specifically indicated in this letter dated 3.9.2001 that the petitioner could be allotted total land admeasuring 57,000 Sq. Meters for establishing the Engineering College. It is clear from the last paragraph of the letter of the O.S.D., Meerut Development Authority that the Development Authority was ready to allot the disputed plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter. The letter dated 3.9.2001 is being reproduced below:
izs"kd] fo'ks"k dk;Zf/kdkjh esjB fodkl izkf/kdj.k] esjBk lsok esa] Jh ;ksxs'k eksgu xqIrk] v/;{k] ,lksfl;s'ku vkQ eSustesaV LVMht] 175] lkdsr esjBk egksn;] izkf/kdj.k Jh xaxkuxj vkoklh; ;kstuk esa bathfu;fjax dkyst dh LFkkiuk gsrq fnukad 18&8&2001 dks vki }kjk Mkyh x;h fufonk ds lEcU/k esa mik/;{k egksn; }kjk fy, x;s fu.kZ; fnukad 29&8&2001 ds vuqdze esa voxr djkuk gS fd bathfu;fjax dkyst gsrq vkjf{kr 57]000-00 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe ds lEcU/k esa vkidk okf.kfT;d vkQj vkjf{kr nj :i;s 690@& izfr oxZ ehVj ls de :i;s 560@& izfr oxZ ehVj ½ izkIr gqvk gS ;fn vki 20]000-00 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe dks vkjf{kr nj :i;s 690@& izfr oxZ ehVj ij bathfu;fjax dkyst gsrq vkaofVr djkus ds bPNqd gks rks viuh lgefr bl i= ds tkjh gksus ds fnukad ls ,d lIrkg ds vUnj miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsa A vkidh lgefr mijkUr bathfu;fjax dkyst dh LFkkiuk gsrq 57]000-00 oxZ ehVj Hkwfe miyC/k djk;h tk ldrh gS A Hkonh;] fo'ks"k dk;Zf/kdkjh 3-9-01 esjB fodkl izkf/kdj.k] esjB Thus, from the contents of above letter, it is amply clear that the Plot in dispute was allocated for educational purposes, opening of an Engineering College. The Meerut Development Authority was ready to sell it to the petitioner for Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter.
48. This letter also clearly shows that the Meerut Development Authority at the relevant time, that is, after submission of the petitioner's tender, was carrying on with the process for settlement of the plot in dispute. The petitioner was prepared to purchase the disputed piece of plot admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters for establishing an Educational Institution. Thus, this Plot could safely be treated to be meant for establishing an Educational Institution. The Brochure, Advertisement and the expressly worded letter dated, 3.9.2001 reveals that the Meerut Development Authority had earmarked the plot in dispute alongwith plots admeasuring 37,000 and 20,000 Sq. Meters for establishing an Engineering College, Higher Educational Institutions or other Educational Institutions (certainly not for residential purposes). It has been lateron indicated in the supplementary counter affidavits. Thus, it appears from the record that as the litigation proceeded a different stand was taken by the Meerut Development Authority, after six years, misrepresenting the Court that the land was earmarked for residential purposes.
49. It is noteworthy that in almost all the supplementary counter affidavits filed by the Meerut Development Authority, it is conceded that the Board vide its resolution dated 6/7th July, 2001 had permitted the sale of the two plots, that is, plots admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meters and 20,000 Sq. Meters (the plot in dispute) for establishing educational institutions. It has been noted in the proceedings of the Board that the petitioner-society is already running various educational institutions and has already established Engineering College, Computer Science and Management Institutes etc. This intention of the Board has been indicated in the advertisement issued on 18.8.2001 by which tenders were invited to sell the other plots including the plot in dispute for establishing educational institutions in Ganga Nagar Scheme, Phase I, Meerut. As indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the Vice Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority through his letter dated 29th August, 2001 has also confirmed the Board's decision that the disputed plot was meant for establishing educational institution and there was nothing to suggest in the resolution of the Board or the letter of the Vice Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority dated 2.9.8.2001 and the offer made to the petitioner-society vide letter dated 3.9.2001 that the plot in dispute was to be used for residential purposes. The conduct of the Meerut Development Authority is highly improper in altering its stand and putting forth a new manufactured story by changing its stand before this Court. It is evident from the documents and records brought by the Meerut Development Authority that right from 12.5.2000, when the first plot was allotted to the petitioner-society, and till the negotiations were in process for allotment/sale of the third plot admeasuring 20,000 or 22,0000 Sq. Meters, the Meerut Development Authority has always treated the disputed plot meant for educational purposes. It was, in fact, negotiating with the petitioner-society to sell the disputed plot by demanding a higher price, that is, Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter (at the reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority) and in this regard a letter was sent to the petitioner-society on 3.9.2001.
50. From the materials available on record, we are of the firm view that the plot in question was earmarked for being allotted for educational purposes of establishing educational institutions such as Engineering College or institutions of higher education etc. The Respondent-Meerut Development Authority had determined the then market price of the said plot at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per Sq. Meter (vide last column of the tender notice) and according to the directions of the State Government, contained in the Government Order dated 11.11.1986, the land to educational institutions was to be given on a concessional rate. Accordingly, the adjoining plot admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meters was allotted to the petitioner-society at the rate of Rs. 5,00/- per Sq. Meter and the petitioner had offered in writing to pay Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter for the plot in dispute, which in view of the prevailing circumstances at the relevant time could be said to be a reasonable price.
51. We have also perused the resolution of the Board of the Meerut Development Authority, which said to have been passed on 15.3.2002. Neither the Board nor the Vice Chairman of the Meerut Development Authority has dealt with these three letters of the petitioner sent on 3.1.2002, 4.3.2002 and 15.3.2002, duly received in the office of the Meerut Development Authority. The Board of the Meerut Development Authority had not disclosed in its resolution as to what was the new material or circumstances which compelled it to pass a resolution to sell the plot in question, meant for educational purpose for residential purposes by changing its land use by public auction while it was already negotiating with the petitioner in furtherance of its tender notice issued on 18.8.2001. The petitioner was the only tenderer and the settlement of Tender/Auction proceedings were not closed or came to an end. The Meerut Development Authority had been under the obligation to perform its statutory duty and the public purpose is paramount. It has been rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Development Authorities cannot indulge in profiteering. The Development Authorities cannot be permitted to alter their decisions within a short span of time for earning more profit by putting the public interest on backtrack. The subsequent decision of alleged conversion of the land use of the Meerut Development Authority was wholly unjust and improper.
52. The petitioner responded to the letter dated 3.9.2001, though its letter dated 17.9.2001. The Petitioner requested the O.S.D., Meerut Development Authority for allotting land admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meters on the quoted rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meter. As far as other piece of land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters is concerned, the petitioner has indicated in the letter that the cost of land, i.e., Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter was not viable for it. However, the petitioner was ready to purchase the same at the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. At the same rate, the petitioner has already purchased a part of the same plot admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meter during the same time. Thus it is clear from the contents of the letter dated 17.9.2001, that the petitioner expressed his readiness/willingness to purchase the plot in dispute at the same price on which he had already purchased a part of the same plot.
This Court has also taken note of the letter dated 26.11.2001 issued by the Meerut Development Authority describing whole of the area admeasuring 57,000 Sq. Meters as land meant for educational use. Out of this large chunk of land, land admeasuring 37,000 per Sq. Meters was allotted to the petitioner and the remaining land admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters was also meant for the same purpose, that is, for establishment of Engineering College or other Educational Institution.
53. It is not uncommon that the a purchaser always look for a viable or reasonable price while purchasing a landed property. From the record, it is clearly evident that the petitioner had also written three more letters, that is, on 3.1.2002, 4.3.2002 and 15.3.2002 for purchasing the plot in dispute. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the price offered by the petitioner was similar or more than the price offer accepted by the Meerut Development Authority for allotment of other plot. The first plot, admeasuring 20,000 Sq. Meters, was allotted on 12.5.2000 to the petitioner in the same vicinity by the Meerut Development Authority at the rate of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter. The adjoining plot, admeasuring 37,000 Sq. Meters, was also allotted to the petitioner for educational purpose at the rate of Rs. 500/- per Sq. Meters. The petitioner, who was already having two plots on both sides of the disputed plot had naturally been entitled to get the third plot and as such it had made the offer of Rs. 560/- per Sq. Meter to purchase the plot in dispute.
54. As indicated earlier, the Meerut Development Authority had made contradictory of statements in its pleadings in various counter affidavits filed before the Court. In Paras 11 and 18 of the original Counter Affidavit filed by the Meerut Development Authority on 25.7.2002, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioner's acceptance of the Meerut Development Authority's offer at the rate of Rs. 690/- was received in the office of the Meerut Development Authority too late on 16.3.2002 at a time when the Board of the Meerut Development Authority had already taken the decision to allot the disputed plot to another person for another purpose on 15.3.2002. It is on this basis that the Meerut Development Authority has in its counter affidavit sought to avoid the event of contract having been concluded between the parties and the consequences thereof. The Meerut Development Authority has thereby tried to mislead this Court on facts.
55. However, from the record of minutes of meeting of the Board dated 15.3.2002 filed as Annexure SCA-1 alongwith the third supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Meerut Development Authority, it is ample clear that the Meerut Development Authority had not only received the acceptance of the petitioner dated 4.3.2002 well before the Board's meeting dated 15.3.2002, but, in fact, it had also convened Board's meeting in order to consider the said acceptance of the petitioner.
Considering these facts and in view of the offer and acceptance exchanged between the parties, it was not open to the Board to avoid the contract arrived at between the petitioner and the Meerut Development Authority and to take any decision or pass any other resolution resolving to reallot the plot in dispute to any other party and that too for any other purpose other than than educational purposes. Thus, the Board's decision and resolution dated 15.3.2002 is bad in law. It deserves to be quashed and further proceeding, advertisement and contracts etc. in consequence thereof undertaken by the Meerut Development Authority were not justified.
56. There appears to be substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that assuming that the petitioner's request, raising its offer to purchase the plot in dispute at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter (at the reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority) was received by the Meerut Development Authority on 16.3.2002, after the Board had already passed the resolution on 15.3.2002, the Board still had got sufficient time before inserting advertisement dated 15.4.2002 to negotiate with the petitioner and it was open for the Board, keeping in mind that it has to act as a statutory body with statutory objectives and also keeping in mind the accepted and admitted developmental need in favour of the petitioner's educational institutions, to reconvene a meeting of the Board to consider the petitioner's offer. The Board of the Meerut Development Authority could have passed a resolution again to restore educational need be of the area reiterating its earlier resolution dated 6/7th July, 2001 and would have acted on the basis of the said resolution by allotting the plot in dispute to the petitioner for establishing educational institution for which the plot was meant.
57. We have also gone through the letters written by the petitioner-society to the Meerut Development Authority. It is evident from perusal of the original record that these letters were duly received in the office of the Meerut Development Authority on 3.1.2002, 5.3.2002 and 13.3.2002 on the same date, much before the meeting of the Board. Thus, all the letters, offers made by the petitioner indicating its willingness by making a clear offer that it was ready to purchase the plot in dispute at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter, that is, on the reserved price and demanded price by the Meerut Development Authority. These letters, which had been duly received in the office of the Meerut Development Authority, ought to have been placed before the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority or the other appropriate authority. The Meerut Development Authority ought to have dealt with these letters as till 15.3.2002, tender/auction proceeding for allotment of the plot in dispute meant for educational purposes was not initiated. There is nothing on record to show as to when the negotiations for settlement of the plot in dispute with the petitioner came to an end. When petitioner was the only tenderer, it was the duty of the Meerut Development Authority to have afforded opportunity of mutual negotiation to the willing party, that is, the petitioner, which had completed all the formalities required for taking part in the allotment/auction proceeding and was the most interested party as two plots situated adjacent to the plot in dispute were already allotted to the petitioner.
58. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances and discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion that no opportunity of mutual negotiation was afforded to the petitioner. The Meerut Development Authority ought to have responded to the repeated offers/letters of the petitioner and could have called the petitioner to match the alleged offer of Officers Varg Awas Samiti or the post advertisement offer of Respondent No. 2-Pawan Kumar Agrawal, whose allotment was later on cancelled due to serious defaults in making the deposits committed by him. The Officers Varg Awas Samiti, which was a stranger to the tender/auction proceeding would not have been invited to take part in the negotiations by the Meerut Development Authority. The Meerut Development Authority under the law was required to dispose of the property by inviting tenders and auctioning its property. How could the Meerut Development Authority entertained a letter said to have been sent by the Officers Varg Awas Samiti whose bonafide were not clear to the Meerut Development Authority.
59. We find sufficient force in the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that a contract had, in fact, concluded as the petitioner, who was the only tenderer, had made its bid alongwith the earnest money within the stipulated period. It had made an offer to purchase the plot in question at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter which was the reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority and had also indicated, vide its letters dated 3.9.2001 and 4.3.2002 written to the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, that the petitioner-society is ready to accept the offer of the Meerut Development Authority. Thus, a substantial relation or a bond came into existence between the petitioner and the Meerut Development Authority. Since the statutory authority declined to act on the written offer and to implement the terms and condition of the advertisement, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the Meerut Development Authority to discharge its obligation under the concluded contract. The petitioner's case derives strength from the judgment of Apex Court in Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotel . The statutory authority cannot act in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner while dealing with the public and entering into contracts. Its action must be in conformity with the same principles which metes tests of reasons and relevance.
60. The principle of promissory estoppel would also come into play and would certainly estop the Meerut Development Authority from backing out of its obligation flowing from a solemn promise made by it to the petitioner by a written letter which was duly responded to by the petitioner. The Meerut Development Authority cannot be allowed to take a turn around posture by setting up a different case at the time of final arguments in the case. The Meerut Development Authority ought to have offered mutual negotiations to the petitioner and in case mutual negotiations have failed only then the Meerut Development Authority could take a different stand. The alleged 'Officers Varg Awas Samiti' was totally a stranger to the allotment and tender process and appears to have been inducted or set up at a later stage to defeat the negotiation proceedings by some unscrupulous and interested officers/emloyees of the Meerut Development Authority.
In the present case, the petitioner, the only tenderer, had agreed to pay the demanded price of the plot in question which was meant for educational purposes, could not have been ignored and dealt with unfairly. I
61. The silence of the Meerut Development Authority and its refusal to accept the offer of the petitioner ignoring its readiness to pay uptodate interest upon the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq, Meter, which was the reserved price fixed by the Meerut Development Authority, was wholly unjust and improper.
This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner-society is performing public service by providing higher education to the students. It has already established different technical institutes by constructing huge buildings on the adjoining plots of land in which several institutions of higher education imparting education of Engineering, Computer Science and Business Administration etc. are already running. More than six thousand students are on the rolls of these Institutions and there was an ever growing need of more and more adjoining land for educational purposes. The Institutions are also desirous of establishing residential hostels and library for the students, Parking and other facilities and the land for open space for the purposes of park and tree plantation is also required to create green environment in and around the campus. In this view of the matter, the requirement/need of the petitioner appears to be genuine.
This Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, is of the view that when there are already educational institutions and a commercial market on the two sides of the disputed plots and this plot is sandwiched between them, the decision and insistence of the Meerut Development Authority to allow the disputed plot to be used for residential purposes by altering the land use for educational purpose would not be in the public interest, both from the point of view of the educational institutions as well as from the point of view of the prospective residents of the proposed group housing.
62. In the present case, the Meerut Development Authority has not come with a plea that there was such a surplusage of higher educational institutions in the area coupled with such an acgte shortage of group housing in the year 2002 that it could not have spared even the disputed plot for educational purposes. Now after five years how the Meerut Development Authority has taken a turn around and taken a stand before the Court that it had needed the plot meant for educational purposes for residential purposes while it had already agreed to allot the plot to the petitioner for establishing educational institutions. At the time of issuance of advertisement and in the early part of the year 2002, the Meerut Development Authority had accepted and admitted the need of the petitioner for the disputed plot for expansion of its educational institutions. This need cannot be sub-served by any other plot of land allotted to the petitioner elsewhere as the plot in dispute is sandwiched in between the two plots of the petitioner. On the ground of equity also, the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought in the writ petition.
63. We are not impressed by the arguments of learned Counsel for the Meerut Development Authority that the Development Authority would loose substantial amount of money by allotting the plot for educational purposes. From the record, produced before the Court by the Meerut Development Authority, it appears that this stand has been taken after about five years as is apparent from the communication between the petitioner and the Meerut Development Authority vide letters sent by the petitioner on 3.1.2002, 4.3.2002 and 15.3.2002 in response to the letters received by the petitioner from the Meerut Development Authority between 26.11.2001 to 15.3.2002 to the effect that the Development Authority was ready to allot the plot on the offered price of petitioner of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter for the educational purposes. The Meerut Development Authority has changed its stand recently ignoring the long pendency of the dispute in this Court that it wants to sell the plot in dispute for residential purposes.
64. Financial gain cannot be a sole reason for taking a decision by the Development Authorities to allot the land for development of the area for one purpose or the other as it would be against the main objective of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 for which the Development Authorities have been established. The altered decision of the Meerut Development Authority to abandon the felt educational need and rigid approach for residential purposes over the disputed plot only on account of higher financial gain coming from private Builders/Colonisers can be taken as in breach of the statutory objective and against the purpose for which Development Authorities have been constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
65. Such situations have arisen before the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as before this Court also. While dealing with such situations, the Hon'ble Apex Court has always been of the view that these Development Authorities and Corporations are not commercial concerns whose performance is to be assessed by the amount it earns. The performance of these bodies would be better assessed by finding out the number of needy persons who have been able to secure shelter and by the beauty of the Township and quality of life for the people achieved through planned development of the area under their control. (Vide Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda AIR 2002 SC 3252 & Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Mudappa ).
66. In Popcorn Entertainment v. CIDCO , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while developing a new township the objective of the planning authorities is not to earn money but to provide for systematic and all-round development of the area so that the purpose of setting up the township is achieved by more and more people wanting to live in the area in view of the various amenities being provided in the area.
Our view also finds support from the ratio of decisions cited by Sri Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vide , Mahabir Auto Stores v. IOC (1991) 1 SCC 21, Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. , Sterling Computers v. M & N Publication (2001) 2 SCC 160, LIC of India v. Asha Goel , ABL International v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India , Hirday Narain v. ITO, Bareilly , Ramana v. LA. Authority of India , T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnatak , The C & A General v. K.S. Jagannathan and Judicial Review & Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf' and Jowell 5th Edition (1995) (Paras 3030, 3-031 [P. 173], 3-042, 3-043 [P. 178-179], 6-036, 6-037[p.315-316])
67. In view of the discussions made above and taking into account the ratio of the decisions of the Apex Court cited before the Court, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's case has not been dealt with justly and fairly. The Respondent- Meerut Development Authority ought to have accepted the alternative offer of the petitioner for purchasing the plot in dispute at the demanded price, that is, at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter and should have consolidated the two plots of the petitioner into one. Only after doing so, it would have been open for the Meerut Development Authority to have proceeded to dispose of its land. Thus, the action of the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority in issuing fresh advertisement for sale of the plot in question without considering the repeated written offers of the petitioner for allotting the plot in question at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter, as demanded being the reserved price by the Respondent- Meerut Development Authority, through its letter dated 3.9.2001 and other communications, was wholly unjust and improper. However, this Court has already passed an interim order restraining the Respondent-Meerut Development Authority from acting upon the subsequent advertisement dated 15.4.2002 pursuant to which no action could be taken by the Meerut Development Authority. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
We have been compelled to pass this order in the special circumstances where the Meerut Development Authority has misled the Court through its counter affidavit filed in the year 2002 to believe that the letters containing offer of the petitioner to purchase the plot in dispute at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter sent by the petitioner were not received till 15.3.2002, the date of Board's impugned resolution. In fact, letters sent by the petitioner were very much on record, duly received in the office of the Meerut Development Authority, and had to be dealt with by the concerned Authorities of the Meerut Development Authority and the Board while passing the resolution. If the correct facts would have been brought before the Court, the dispute could have been resolved immediately and the Court could have taken a different view in the year 2002 in the year 2002 itself and the litigation would not have remained pending for about five years. Due to subsequent change in the stand of the Meerut Development Authority, this Court has to delve into the records summoned from the Meerut Development Authority to find out the truth. Here is a case where a Society running educational institutions in the adjoining plots, despite making a specific and clear offer to pay the demanded price, i.e., Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter was deprived of from purchasing the adjacent plot, meant for educational purposes, which was sandwiched in between its two already existing plots whereupon other educational institutions were already established and running. Since the auction proceedings in which petitioner was a party and was the only tenderer were not finalised properly reaching at a logical end, we are ordering that the petitioner, who had entered portal of the Court immediately in the year 2002, is entitled to purchase the plot at the price of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter as demanded by the Meerut Development Authority vide its letter dated 3.9.2001.
68. As far as the Respondent No. 2-Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who is petitioner in connected Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007, is concerned, he had no locus standi to contest the petitioner's case. He had no concern with the merits of the petitioner's case which was filed in the year 2002 seeking a direction from this Court to the Meerut Development Authority to accept its offer and to continue with the negotiation proceedings. It is evident from the Meerut Development Authority's own record that Pawan Kumar Agrawal was a chronic defaulter. He did not comply with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement and had not deposited the required amount within the stipulated period. He had not made any payment to the Meerut Development Authority for over three years, despite written letters and reminders sent to him by the Meerut Development Authority. Due to default on the part of Pawan Kumar Agrawal in making the deposit of the amount required, a show cause notice was issued against him on 28.3.2007 and this Court had to pass a specific order on 8.5.2007, directing the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority to explain on affidavit the ambiguities and change of stand as regards the rates as well as purpose and use of the land. It was also observed in the order that as to why no action had been taken against Pawan Kumar Agrawal cancelling the auction made in his favour on 2.8.2002, about five years ago. The Court has also taken note of the fact that Pawan Kumar Agrawal had only deposited an initial amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- at the time of submission of his tender and upto finalisation of auction and thereafter he failed to deposit any amount in furtherance of the terms and conditions contained in the auction notice. Lately, when this fact was brought to the notice of the Court, then the Meerut Development Authority had cancelled the auction made in favour of Pawan Kumar Agrawal vide order dated 14.5.2007 after affording him an opportunity of hearing.
69. It has been successfully demonstrated before this Court that Pawan Kumar Agrawal had failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the auction notice. He had not deposited the auction amount within the stipulated period of time. As per the record, the Meerut Development Authority has sent several written notices to him to deposit the amount, but he failed to do so. Lastly, a show cause notice was also issued against him preceding cancellation of the auction made in his favour vide order dated 14.5.2007, impugned in the connected Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007 filed in June, 2007. This order is a detailed reasoned and speaking order and does not call for any interference from this Court.
70. In view of the above perspective, we find no error or illegality in this cancellation order for which Meerut Development Authority has given detailed reasons and explanation in its second supplementary counter affidavit filed before this Court on 18.5.2007. We have also gone through the explanation of the Meerut Development Authority and are satisfied that the action of cancellation of auction held on 2nd August, 2002 does not suffer from any illegality as ample opportunity was afforded to Pawan Kumar Agrawal to deposit the amount and to discharge his obligation as per the terms and condition of the tender/auction and other necessary conditions. By merely depositing Rs. 5,50,000/- at the time of auction proceeding and failing to deposit the remaining amount does not create indefeasible right in favour of Respondent No. 2 (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007)-auction purchaser. More than five years have now elapsed and Pawan Kumar Agrawal, who had defaulted in making payment of auction price of the land, has no right to get the allotment in pursuance of result of the auction proceeding and to get the contract executed in his favour.
71. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 18578 of 12002 succeeds and is allowed. The advertisement dated 15.4.2002, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition, is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to Respondent No. l-Meerut Development Authority to accept the petitioner-society's offer of purchasing the plot in dispute at the reserved price already fixed by the Meerut Development Authority vide advertisement dated 18.8.2001 and its own offer made vide letter dated 3.9.2001 at the rate of Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter, which should be accepted. The petitioner is directed to pay uptodate simple interest @ 9% per annum on the total price of the land accrued from the date of acceptance of the rate, i.e., Rs. 690/- per Sq. Meter by the petitioner till date. The Respondent-Meerut Development Authority is restrained from allotting or selling the plot in dispute to any other person except the petitioner-society, who was the only tenderer and negotiations with whom were going on. The Meerut Development Authority is restrained from changing the land use of the plot admeasuring 20,000 or 22,000 Sq. Meters, meant for establishing educational institutions, as indicated in the advertisement dated 18.8.2001. The Meerut Development Authority is directed to execute the Sale Deed/Lease Deed of the plot in dispute in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and order before the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority.
The Writ Petition No. 30074 of 2007 filed by Pawan Kumar Agrawal challenging the order of cancellation dated 14.5.2007, passed by the Meerut Development Authority, deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.