Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti vs M/S M K Traders And Ors on 10 January, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1325/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. M.K. Traders & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1326/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Madan Lal Roop Narain & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1327/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Shyam Sales Corp.& Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1328/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs.M/s. Ritesh Kumar & Co. & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1329/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs.M/s.Madan Lal Pawan Kumar & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1330/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Shiv Shanker Sales Corp. & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1331/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. O.P. Trading Co. & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1332/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Shakun Traders & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1333/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Vaibhav Trading Co. & Ors. D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.1334/2011 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Chagan lal Mool Chand & Ors. Date of order : 10.01.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Mr. Inderjeet Singh, for the appellants. Mr. B.L. Gupta with Mr. Rahul Ghiya, Mr. Ajay Gupta, for the respondents.
The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners questioning the advertisement issued on 18.5.2009 by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Anaz), Jaipur for allotment of plots in Rajdhani Gaun Mandi Prangan, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Kukerkhera Krishi Upaj Mandi Sub Yard).
It was contended that the petitioners were doing business in agriculture produce and accordingly paying mandi fee for last so many years. The Allotment of Immovable Property Policy, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Policy of 2005') was framed for allotment of plots in Mandi Sub Yard. The matter travelled to the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench has decided D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.519/2008 (Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. M/s. Ashoka Oil Indus. & Ors.) alongwith other 54 special appeals by common order dated 9.9.2008. It was directed by Division Bench that the appellants shall advertise remaining plots providing opportunity to all the traders and brokers doing their business in Sub-Market Yards and the Market Area. Opportunity was granted to the appellants to allot plots in second phase after advertising those plots with other plots, if carved out for allotment, in accordance with the Policy of 2005 framed by the appellants. Thirdly, it was also directed that in case the appellants decide to allot 36 plots as per their necessity without waiting for advertising the plots earmarked for the second phase, they were directed to advertise and allot the same within a reasonable time according to the Policy of 2005.
After the decision was rendered by Division Bench of this Court, advertisement in question was issued. Though 36 plus 4 plots were left out from the first phase, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti wanted to apply procedure of allotment of the plots for second phase. Prayer was made to direct the respondents to apply the Policy of 2005 for allotment of the left out plots of first phase.
The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has contended that the first phase of allotment came to an end with the allotments made to the incumbents who were working in the Chandpole Mandi Yard, after exhausting the first phase, whatever plots exist, their allotment in the second phase has to be made on the basis of lottery and not on the yardsticks applied for the first phase. The Single Bench has, after considering the directions issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision dated 9.9.2008, observed that while plots were allotted in the first phase, the cases of petitioners were not considered for allotment in first phase process, though with intervention of the Court, other similarly situated persons were given plots. The plots in question have not been carved out newly, they are admittedly of first phase itself. It has been ordered that these 40 plots have to be allotted applying the Policy of 2005. First phase allotment has to be made as per the Policy of 2005, whereas in the second phase, allotment has to be made on lottery basis. Aggrieved by the directions issued by Single Bench, the intra court appeals have been preferred.
Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 9.9.2008 is clear. He has attracted our attention to para 30 of the judgment in which directions have been issued by the Division Bench to contend that there was no scope for resorting to the process of first phase, in view of the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the Single Bench has erred in directing otherwise.
Shri B.L.Gupta and Shri Ajay Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that as per Clause 2(8) of the Policy of 2005, it was necessary to give opportunity to the incumbents who were working in the market area also, as per willingness to shift in the market yard in the first phase of allotment. As per the aforesaid clause, the allotment in the newly set up market yard was to be made to the incumbents working in the market sub yard and also the applications were to be invited from the incumbents who were working in the market area. As the respondents were working in the market area, they were entitled for consideration for allotment of the remaining available plots in the first phase itself. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has not started second phase of allotment of plots. Thus direction issued is in terms of Clause 2(8) of the Policy of 2005 and direction No.3 issued by this Court. The direction of Division Bench is also to the effect to apply the Policy of 2005 to these shops of the first phase. The decision is according to the direction issued by the Division Bench.
Para 2(8) of the policy of 2005 reads as under:-
2. ????????? :
(8 ) ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????????????, ??????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????, ????????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ?????/??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ! ????? ???? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????????????? ??????????? ?? ??????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????! The Division Bench in para 30 of the aforesaid judgment has given the following directions:-
30. We have seriously thought over the claims and counter claims of the appellants and the respondents. Dismissal or allowing the appeal will not solve the problem of either of the parties. A solution has to be found out. To resolve this controversy, we dispose of these appeals in following terms:
(i)The appellants shall advertise remaining plots providing opportunity to all the Traders and Brokers doing their business in Sub-Market Yards and the Market Area.
(ii)We grant an opportunity to the appellants to allot plots in second phase after advertising these plots with other plots, if carved out for allotment, in accordance with the policy framed by the appellants.
(iii)In case, the appellants decide to allot these 36 plots as per their necessity without waiting for advertising the plots earmarked for the second phase, the appellants are directed to advertise and allot the same within reasonable time according to the policy.
Direction No.1 issued by the Division Bench in the decision dated 9.9.2008 is to the effect that for allotment of the plots advertisement has to be issued. After inviting the applications, after advertising these plots with other plots, it was open to make the allotment of plots. Third direction was that in case 36 plots are to be allotted without waiting to advertise the plots earmarked for second phase allotment, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti was to allot the land as per Policy of 2005. It is not in dispute that four additional plots were made available due to interim order passed by this Court; in all 40 plots were available, they were to be allotted as per the Policy of 2005. The direction of the Division Bench was for issuing advertisement in order to give participation to all the eligible incumbents. It is stated at bar that 350 applications have been received. Criteria for allotment of first phase is different alongwith eligibility then prescribed for second phase allotment for which criterion of eligibility and zone of consideration is different and method is by way of lottery. Since the shops were of first phase of allotment, it was to be done in terms of clause 2(8) of the Policy of 2005.
In fact, allotment as per Clause 2(8) of the Policy of 2005 is contemplated to the incumbents who were working in the market area and desired to shift to the market yard they have to be given option to stake their claim and their applications have to be decided in fair manner and in accordance with the Policy of 2005. The direction No.3 issued by Division Bench of this Court in para 30 of the order dated 9.9.2008 is for allotment as per Policy of 2005. Thus the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has to apply Policy of 2005 of first phase plots when incumbents of first phase are available, as the plots are admittedly of first phase. The Division Bench of this Court has also directed to allot as per policy. The Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has not yet started second phase of allotment, hence cannot apply the policy of second phase.
Thus, we find that the decision of Single Bench is appropriate and in terms of the Policy of 2005 and direction issued by Division Bench of this Court. No ground for interference is made out.
The intra court appeals are hereby dismissed. Stay applications are also dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, PA