SATGURU PREMISES PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the respondent-RIICO whereby, the allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn. The order is under challenge on two grounds, i.e., on its merit as well as the rate of interest on the refund amount.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner being the highest bidder in an open auction, was allotted an industrial plot measuring 15.90 acres by the RIICO vide allotment letter dated 03.01.2006 for construction of an amusement park/resort at Industrial Area, Jirota. The petitioner deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.2,42,84,228/- within the stipulated time. Vide its possession letter dated 05.05.2007, the respondent handed over its physical possession to the petitioner. On 10.03.2008, lease agreement was executed between the parties and was submitted for registration with the Sub-Registrar, Dausa on 15.03.2008; but, could not be registered because of an ad-interim order dated 18.05.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Dausa in civil suit filed by one Babu Lal against the respondent-RIICO and other parties which was confirmed on 12.02.2008. In the civil suit, it was pleaded by Shri Babu Lal that through the land of khasra No.298, out of which the land in question was allotted, a 30 feet wide public way exists through which he has right of way to approach his field. It was alleged that the defendants were trying to obstruct his right of way by raising construction therein; whereupon, the learned trial Court, vide its interim order, restrained the defendants therein from obstructing the right of way of the plaintiff, from raising construction on the land of public way, from selling it and from handing over its possession. Since the petitioner was already in possession of the entire land allotted to it including the 30 feet wide alleged way, it was impleaded as a party in the suit on its application under order of this Court dated 13.11.2017 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.2409/2008. During pendency of the suit, the allotment made in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn by the respondent-RIICO vide order impugned dated 17.09.2020 on the premise that on account of stay order dated 18.05.2007 regarding 30 feet wide road, the petitioner could not be handed over peaceful possession of the entire allotted land nor lease deed could be registered by the Sub-Registrar, Dausa and proceeded to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum after deducting income tax at the rate of 7.50% per annum through the cheque dated 17.09.2020 which has not been encashed till date by the petitioner.

(3.) Assailing the order dated 17.09.2020, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is based on totally misconceived notion that the petitioner could not be handed over peaceful possession of the allotted land on account of various Court cases and stay order dated 18.05.2007. He contended that the litigation is post handing over physical possession on 05.05.2007 as is evident from possession letter dated even (Annexure-8) and the petitioner is still in actual and physical possession of the entire allotted land. Drawing attention of this Court towards the preliminary objections raised in reply by the respondents No.1 to 3, as well as para-wise reply, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order impugned dated 17.09.2020 has sought to been justified on the grounds foreign to the reasoning assigned in the impugned order. He submitted that while, in the order impugned, the intervening factors beyond the control of petitioner have been made cause of the withdrawal of the allotment letter; whereas, in reply, the order has sought to been justified putting the entire blame on the petitioner, i.e., for not raising construction within a period of two years and also for not starting production activities within three years from the date of possession as well. He submitted that in view of the stay order passed by the learned Civil Court, the petitioner could not have been blamed for not raising construction within the stipulated time. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even otherwise also, in response to the letter of the respondent dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure-17) requiring the petitioner to submit an undertaking to install the project on the allotted land barring disputed part, it has, vide affidavit dated 04.06.2012 of Satish Tambi, its authorized Director (Annexure-19), expressed its willingness to raise construction of the amusement park/resort on the land in question leaving 30 feet wide road. Referring to its letter dated 30.03.2012 (Annexure-18), learned Senior Counsel submitted that showing its readiness and willingness to go ahead with the project, it has proposed a joint meeting with RIICO officials to resolve the problem and to come out with some solution; but, the letter was never responded to by the respondents. He submitted that yet again, vide its letter dated 16.07.2020 (Annexure-20), the petitioner has expressed its willingness to start the project excluding the 30 feet wide piece of land; but, it also failed to evoke any response. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid, no fault could have been found with the petitioner for not complying with the terms of the allotment. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondents, instead of responding to its letters dated 30.03.2012 or dated 16.07.2020; proceeded to pass the order impugned without issuing any show cause notice or without furnishing it any opportunity of hearing. Learned Senior Counsel, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851 and Commissioner of Police, Bombay versus Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court 16, canvassed that an administrative order can be justified only on the reasons specified therein and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavits or otherwise. He, therefore, submitted that the reasons assigned by the respondents in their reply to justify the impugned order dated 17.09.2020 cannot be taken into consideration to adjudge its validity.