A.P.RAVANI,C.J. - (1.) BOTH these Special Appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4483/93 decided on May 16, 1994 (Coram: Mrs. Mohini Kapur, J.) and is SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3120/94 decided on June 3, 1994 (Coram : Arun Madan, J.).
(2.) IN substance, the Appeals relate to the liability of the appellant -petitioner company to pay the land and building tax in respect of the property known as the Old State Garrage, purchased by it in public auction held by the Jaipur Development Authority on January 8, 1992. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows -The Jaipur Development Authority put up for auction the lease hold rights for 99 years in respect of the property known as the Old State Motor Garrage, situated at M.I. Road. Promoters of the company participated in the auction and highest bid was of Rs. 13 crore 17 lakh. The auction was confirmed. Thereafter the promoters formed the company. The company paid certain amount. The company apprehended that the auction may be cancelled for one reason or the other. Hence the company filed a petition in this court, inter alia, praying that the Jaipur Development Authority be directed not to cancel the auction. The Petition was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal. In appeal (DB Civil Special Appeal No. 443/92) consent terms were arrived at between the parties and were placed before the Court on January 30, 1993. The Court passed order in terms of the consent filed by the parties. The consent terms read as follows - - (a) On deposition of the amount of Rs. 4 crore the JDA will ensure that exemption from urban land ceiling and regulation act will be given within 60 days from the date of making of an application in this regard. (b) The main temple area including the passage area will be excluded from the allotment. (c) Rs. 2 crore would be paid by the petitioner on 30.1.93, Rs. 2 crore would be paid by 20th Feb., 1993 and the balance would be paid by the petitioner in monthly instalments, subject to the condition that each instalment shall be of a minimum amount of Rs. 20 lac and whole of the outstanding amount shall be paid within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of the said agreement. (d) Physical possession of the property shall be handed over to the petitioner as soon as Rs. 4 crore is paid by the petitioner as per the agreement. (e) Boundary on Amrapura Temple side will be constructed by the JDA so as to enclose the approach to temple from M.I. Road. The main temple area including the passage area will be exculded from the allotment and no cost of land so excluded will be charged. (f) The lease deed shall be executed by the JDA in favour of the petitioner only after receipt of full payment by the petitioner and in the event of any default by the petitioner in payment of the dues the allotment will stand automatically cancelled. (g) That prejudice to the terms of the said agreement the Hon'ble High Court shall decide the question as to the claim for interest and penalty. Pursuant to the consent terms, the company deposited further amount of Rs. 4 crore on February 16, 1993 and it was put into possession. After obtaining the possession the company obtained order from the State Government and sought exemption from the operations and implementation of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the Act of 1976). Thereafter the respondent No. 2 herein i.e. Assistant Director (Chandpol zone), Land and Building Department, Jaipur, issued notice calling upon the petitioner company for making assessment of the market value of the property for purposes of levy of tax. The petitioner company filed reply dated June 9, 1993. After considering the reply, respondent No. 2 passed order dated July 16, 1993 and assessed the tax at Rs. 25 lakh 13 thousand for the year 1993 -94. The petitioner company challenged the legality and validity of the order of assessment by filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4483/93. Pursuant to the order of assessment dated July 16, 1993, several demand notices were issued to the company. The company filed another writ petition SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3120/94 challenging the demand notices.
(3.) THE writ petition No. 4483/93 was decided by the learned Single Judge (Coram : Mrs. Mohini Kapur, J.) as per judgment and order dated May 16, 1994 and the Petition was ordered to be dismissed. Similarly another petition No. 3120/94 was dismissed on June 3, 1994 (Coram : Arun Madan, J.). It is against the aforesaid judgments and orders that these two appeals are filed.;