B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondents may be directed to get the lease-deed registered in their favour in respect of plot No. 58, Masuriya Sector 4-B, Jodhpur, before April 31,1991. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs, 20,000/- on account of loss and injury suffered by the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners, in an open auction held on September 18,1982, purchased the plot No. 58, Masuriya Sector 4-E, Jodhpur, for a consideration of Rs. 2,55,958. 08p. and deposited the entire cost of the plot with the respondents, but the respondents neither issued the licence in favour of the petitioners nor executed or registered the lease-deed in their favour. As the licence was not granted by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1963 of 1988 (Deep Chand Surana vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur), and was decided on October 18,1989. THE writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed as the counsel for the respondents gave an undertaking that the licence will be issued within two weeks from that day. THE counsel for the Urban Improvement Trust, also, gave an undertaking that in case the petitioners apply for permission for raising the construction over the plot in question then the permission will be issued to them in accordance with law. THE case of the petitioner is that inspite of the writ petition being allowed in favour of the petitioner by this Court vide its order dated October 18, 1989, the respondents have not granted the licence to the petitioner nor gave the permission to raise the construction over the plot in question though the petitioners approached the respondents several times. It has further been averred that the peti-tioners intend to take loan from the scheduled bank and for that the bank req-uires the registered sale-deed/lease deed and the petitioners, therefore, requested the respondent to execute and register the sale-deed/lease deed in their favour so that they may be able to get loan from the scheduled bank. THE case of the petitioners is that such type of advanced lease-deed were executed by the respondent in several cases, including the case of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya and Jodhpur Hospital, Jodhpur. THE respondents filed reply to the Show Cause Notice and their case is that the bid of the petitioner for Rs. 2,55,958. 08 p. was the highest and the petitioner deposited 1 /4th of this amount on September 18,1982, and they were required to deposit the remaining amount by October 28, 1982, but the petitioners paid this amount vide two cheques on November 27, 1982, and these cheques were cleared on December 1,1982. THE case of the respondents is that as the amount was paid late by one month and, therefore, they are entitled for interest on this late payment of the amount. As the interest of one month on this amount has not been paid by the petitioners and, therefore, the lease deed cannot be executed in their favour. So far as the grant of advanace lease-deed is concerned, the case of the respondents is that the cases of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya and Jodhpur Hospital and others are different from the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any advance lease-deed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. As per rule 17 (5) of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal) Rules, 1974, the cost of the land shall be recovered from the allottee within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of intimation for depositing the amount, provided that the allottee may deposit the amount within next sixty days, but an interest @ Rs. 12% per annum shall be charged with effect from the date of allotment. The condition No. 2 of the Notice of auction, issued for the month of September, 1982, also, contains the same provision. According to Condition No. 2, the highest bidder has to deposit l/4th amount of the bid immediately after the bid is finalised and the remaining 3/4th amount has to be deposited within one month of the acceptance of the highest bid. Condition No. 2 as well as rule 17 (5) of the Rules, thus, provide that the highest bidder has to deposit the 3/4th amount of the bid money within one month of the acceptance of the highest bid. It is not the case of the respondents that they gave intimation to the petitioners for the acceptance of the bid. When no intimation was given to the petitioners regarding acceptance of the bid then the respondents are not entitled for charging the interest on the unpaid 3/4th amount. It is only after the receipt of the intimation of acceptance of the bid that if the remaining 3/4th amount is not paid within one month from the date of intimation then the respondents are entitled to charge interest @ Rs. 12% on that amount. ' As no intimation was given by the respondents to the petitioner and as such the respondents are not entitled for any interest on the unpaid 3/4th amount. In the present case, without any intimation given to the petitionersa, the petitioners deposited the remaining 3/4th amount. The respondents are, therefore, not entitled for any interest on the unpaid 3/4th amount, which was (deposited by the petitioners within two months of the conclusion of the auction proceedings. Even upto today, the respondents have not intimated the petiti-oners regarding acceptance of the bid, though the amount was accepted by the respondents. Now so far as the question of execution of the sale deed/lease deed is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the execution and registration of the advanced lease-deeds in favour of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya and the Jodhpur Hospital and others, but the case of the respondents is that their cases were different from the case of the petitioners. The advanee lease deed was granted in favour of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya to enable him to get the loan from the scheduled bank for raising the construction over the plot which he possessed. The petitioners, also, want the sale-deed/lease-deed executed in their favour so that they may be able to get the house constructed on the plot in question. The petitioners have, also, applied for the grant of advance lease-deed in their favour so that they may be able to get loan from the scheduled bank as after applying for the loan the bank has asked the petitioners to submit the leas-deed, which they cannot submit until and unless the same is executed and registered by the respondents. When the respondents have granted advance lease-deed to Shri Hukam Chand Lohiya and some other persons then why the advance lease-deed cannot be granted to the petitioners to enable them to obtain loan from the bank for raising construction over their plot. Refusing to grant advance lease deed in favour of the petitioners and granting the same to Shri Hukam Chand Lohiya and other persons clearlya mounts to a discrimination at the hands of the respondents. No reply has been submitted by the respondents to the Show Cause Notice. In the similar circumstances, in the cases of Dhanna Ram and Surendra Chandra, this Court directed the respondents to execute the lease-deed in favour of the petitioners in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2627 of of 1988 and S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 537 of 1989, respectively. Consequently, this writ petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed and the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhqur, is directed to execute an advance lease deed in favour of the petitioners regarding plot No. 58, Masuriya Section 4-E, Jodhpur, within a period of one month from today, to enable them to get the loan from the Scheduled bank or from the Central Government, State Government, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rajasthan Financial Corporation or the Rajasthan State Coope ative Housing Financing Society, Jaipur. . ;