Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) This petition impugns the order dated 3 -7 -2014 whereby the allotment made to the petitioner company following an auction on 5 -1 -1981 has been cancelled.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter 'the RHB') advertised for auction of a plot of land admeasuring 3483 sq. meter specifically for setting up a cinema. Public auction was held on 5 -1 -1981. Having offered a sum of Rs. 1110/ - per sq. meter at the auction for the plot in issue, the petitioner company was declared the successful bidder. As per the terms and conditions of the bid, 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 9,66,532.50/ - was paid by the petitioner company on 8 -1 -1981 and the remainder amount of Rs. 38,66,130/ - was to be paid in seven annual instalments along with 14% interest. Possession of the land was given to the petitioner company on 21 -4 -1981.
(3.) The due instalments payable each year were not paid by the petitioner company alleging that RHB had failed to discharge its obligation of removing alleged obstruction and encumbrances on the plot in issue rendering it unusable for the purpose allotted. The RHB then appears to have taken steps to re -auction the plot in question. Thereupon SBCWP No. 5198/1989, titled M/s. Adini Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board was filed by the petitioner company. On the matter coming up before this court on 15 -6 -1995, this court found the disputes raised by the petitioner company about the RHB's alleged breach of its obligations related to a contract between the parties for which the remedy to the aggrieved party lay in filing an appropriate suit and dispute could not be addressed/adjudicated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition the petitioner company was given liberty of laying a suit within thirty days, in which eventuality the suit was to be considered to have been filed within limitation. Aggrieved the petitioner company filed DB Special Appeal No. 487/1995. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 8 -9 -1995. A Special Leave to Appeal thereagainst i.e. No. 943/1996 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 30 -4 -1996. However while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal, on statement made by the counsel for the petitioner company, which was denied by the counsel for the RHB, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in case the respondent RHB intended to settle the matter out of the court, the order of dismissal of the SLP need not be treated as a bar thereto.;