KEWAL RAM Vs. U.I.T. JODHPUR
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
S.K. Mal Lodha, J. -
(1.)The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the non-petitioner, not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 70, Sector 4-E Masuria Scheme, and also an order restraining the non-petitioner from re-auctioning and otherwise transferring it in other manner. The petitioner gave a bid in open auction on July 26, 1969 for the aforesaid plot. He was the highest bidder being for Rs. 18133.75. The auction money was deposited and the non-petitioner gave possession of the plot to the petitioner, as is clear from Anx. 1 dated Sept. 29, 1969, sent by the Secretary, Urban Improvements Trust Jodhpur, to the petitioner. Licence Anx. 2 dated September. 2, 1969 was issued. The petitioner applied for sanction for construction, which was also granted vide Anx. 3 dated March 9, 1970 by the non-petitioner. The petitioner purchased stone pattis costing Rs. 25,000.00 which are said to be lying on the plot and some of the pattis' which were erected and fixed have fallen. It has been alleged by the petitioner that the non-petitioner has changed that plot number, which according to him is situate on main Pali Road. The non-petitioner is said no have auctioned some of the plots, which were auctioned previously. The petitioner apprehended that plot which is covered by the licence Anx. 2 dated Sept. 2, 1969 may also be re-auctioned. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs.
(2.)No reply has been filed on behalf of the non-petitioner in pursuance of the show cause notice. On Feb. 8, 1984, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime, I ordered that the writ petition shall finally be disposed of at the admission stage. Mr. H.N. Calla on that day, prayed for time to seek instructions in the matter. Today, he stated that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. The facts narrated here-in-above have not been controverted, and the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioner was right in not disputing them.
(3.)It is clear that in an open auction the petitioner purchased the plot being the highest bidder and deposited the amount. The letter (Anx. 1) dated Sept. 23, 1969 was issued to the petitioner asking him to take physical possession. The entire amount of the bid was deposited. Thereafter the licence (Anx. 2) dated Sept. 2, 1969 was issued in regard to plot no. 70, Sector 4E, Masuria Scheme, to the petitioner. The measurement given in the licence is i06 - 66 sq. yds. The permission for construction on the aforesaid plot was also granted vide anx. 3 dated March 9, 1970 in U.I.T. Constu. Case no. 345/6.9.70. It is clear that the petitioner had purchased the plot covered by the licence Anx. 2. He was put in possession. In these circumstances, the non-petitioner has no right to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, as well as to re-auction it or to transfer it otherwise.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.