Suresh Chandra vs U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11760 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5170 of 2018)

Suresh Chandra ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS [

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment

and order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the High

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

in Writ Petition No. 6198(M/B) of 2012 whereby the

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.03 17:00:34 IST Reason:

petition filed by the appellant herein.

1

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this

appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is

necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief

hereinbelow.

4. While issuing notice of this special leave to

appeal on 06.03.2018, this Court passed the

following order:

“Application for exemption from filing official translation is allowed.

Issue notice on the limited question as to why the property in question admeasuring 639 sq.metres land which was auctioned by Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad for which market price as of today is quite high, be not put to auction sale again, returnable on 14th March, 2018.

Status quo as of today in respect of the property in question shall be maintained.

Petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by way of dasti service within a week.”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the

respondents have filed their response/counter

affidavits.

2

6. In short, the dispute relates to a plot of land

bearing plot No. 4B/CP­03 (Sector 4B) situated at

Sikandara Yojna, Agra having total area measuring

639.75 Sq. meter owned by U.P. Avas Vikas

Parishad­respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter

referred to as “the Parishad”).

7. On 12.08.2010, the Parishad in daily Hindi

News Papers “Dainik Jagaran” and "Amar Ujala”

issued an advertisement inviting applications from

interested parties for allotment of the

aforementioned land. The reserved rate of the plot

was fixed at Rs.17,248/­ per sq. mt. The parties

were to deposit a token money of Rs.11,03,500/­.

8. It is the case of the appellant that he was one

of the bidders, who quoted the rate of the plot at

Rs.18050/­ per sq. meter which was the highest.

The Parishad, however, was of the view that the

offers received did not represent the real market

3 price and, therefore, it decided to re­auction the

same.

9. The Parishad, therefore, issued a fresh

advertisement for allotment of land. The appellant

felt aggrieved with the Parishad's decision to re­

auction the land in question and issuance of fresh

advertisement and filed Writ Petition No.6198/2012

in the High Court at Allahabad. The High Court, by

interim order dated 30.07.2012, directed that re­

auction may be held but it will be subject to the

final outcome of the writ petition.

10. In re­auction, respondent No. 5 submitted his

bid for Rs.28,000/­ per Sq. Meter as against the

reserve price of Rs.27,104/­ fixed by the Parishad.

The appellant in order to show his bona fide interest

offered to purchase the land for Rs.40,000/­ per Sq.

Meter and later modified his offer at Rs.45,000/­

per Sq. Meter in the Court. The appellant also

4 deposited a sum of Rs.1.15 crores out of the total

amount of Rs.2.87 crores.

11. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed

the appellant's writ petition essentially on the

ground that since he was not the bidder in the re­

auction proceedings, he cannot be heard in the

matter and Secondly; since during the pendency of

the writ petition, the Parishad had executed the sale

deed of the land in favour of respondent No.5 and

hence nothing now survives in the matter.

12. The appellant(writ petitioner) felt aggrieved and

filed this appeal by way of special leave in this

Court. As mentioned above, notice was issued to

examine only one limited issue in relation to re­

auction of the land.

13. Heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior

counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Kulshrestha,

5 learned senior counsel, Mr. Vishwajit Singh and Mr.

Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are inclined to dispose of the appeal as mentioned

hereinbelow.

15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1­ Parishad

at the outset submitted that the Parishad has no

objection if the re­auction of the plot of the land in

question is done because in re­auction proceedings,

the Parishad is bound to get more sale price as

against the price quoted by the bidders in the

earlier two auctions.

16. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5,

however, defended the impugned order and

contended that since the sale has already been

concluded in his favour and sale deed has also been

executed, the appeal deserves dismissal.

6

17. We are of the considered opinion that in order

to do complete justice between the parties in

relation to subject matter of the proceedings in

question and to balance the equities and further

having regard to all the facts and circumstances of

the case, the fresh auction of the land in question

can be ordered. It is also necessary for the following

reasons.

18. First, the 2nd re­auction proceedings

conducted by the Parishad were made subject to

final outcome of the writ petition by order dated

30.07.2012 passed by the High Court in the

appellant’s writ petition and, therefore, even if

Parishad had proceeded to finalize the sale of the

land in question in favour of respondent No.5, it did

not affect any of the rights of the appellant while

prosecuting the writ petition. It was more so

because the respondent No.5 was also aware of the

7 order dated 30.07.2012, he being part to the writ

petition.

19. Second, the Parishad did not give adequate

publicity for sale of the land in question while

conducting two auctions because we find that only

two bidders could participate in the auctions.

20. In our view, the Parishad, keeping in view, the

value and the potential of the land, should have

given adequate publicity in the leading national

English, Hindi newspapers having circulation all

over the country including any other prescribed

mode of publication with a sole object to attract

participation of more and more persons in the

auction proceedings.

21. Third, the Parishad committed an error in

fixing reserve price of the land at a very less

amount. The Parishad should have seen that the

land has a tremendous potential in commercial

8 market as is clear from the fact that both the

bidders had volunteered to pay much higher price

as against their original bid amount.

22. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, we

are of the view that the land in question deserves to

be re­auctioned afresh.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned

order is set aside. The Parishad is directed to re­

auction the land in question by giving wide publicity

in various leading national newspapers having

circulation all over India in bold letters including

giving publicity in local daily newspapers also in the

States with a view to enable more and more persons

to participate in the auction for allotment of the said

land.

24. The Parishad is also directed to get the reserve

price fixed after consulting experts in the subject.

9

25. The Parishad is also directed to provide

adequate conditions so that the auction process

becomes transparent and at the same time the

bidders are able to submit their bids properly.

26. The Parishad is also directed to refund the

entire money to the appellant and the respondent

No. 5, which they had deposited for purchase of the

land in question in auctions with interest payable at

the rate of 6% p.a..

27. The State will issue a necessary certificate in

favour of respondent No.5 to enable him to claim

refund of stamp duty amount from the State which

he has paid on the sale deed executed by the

Parishad in his favour in relation to the land in

question. Since this Court has directed re­

auctioning of the land, the sale deed has now

become void. Respondent No.5 is, therefore, entitled

to claim refund of entire stamp duty amount paid

10 by him on the sale deed for its

execution/registration.

28. The appellant and respondent No. 5 will be

free to participate in the auction proceedings as a

fresh bidder along with others. However, they will

not be entitled to claim any kind of benefit in re­

auction proceedings on the ground that they had

earlier participated in the auction proceedings.

29. The Parishad would ensure that the auction

proceedings are conducted in fair and transparent

manner and fetch maximum price of the land.

30. Let the fresh auction proceedings be completed

within 6 months from the date of this order.

………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

…...……..................................J. [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi;

December 03, 2018

11