1/7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Ramesh Sethi VS. UIT & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5193/2003 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 12th February, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.S. Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. B.R. Mehta for the respondents. ------ BY THE COURT:- 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition inter alia claiming the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by an appropriate writ, order direction respondents be directed to issue notice of demand to the petitioner for the remaining auction price of shop No.6 purchased by him in Mukta Prasad Nagar Scheme, Bikaner and thereafter grant him lease deed at the earliest and the possession of the plot may kindly be ordered to be given. 2/7 ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers proper may kindly be granted. Iii) cost of the petition be awarded.” 2. The petitioner submitted that in an auction held for shop No.6 in Mukta Prasad Nagar Yojana for auction of commercial plots conducted by the respondent UIT, Bikaner, he gave the highest bid for the said shop No.6 measuring 15 ft. x 10 ft. and deposited ¼ of the amount of the bid on 5.12.2002 amounting to Rs.34,500/-. When the respondent – UIT did not execute any lease deed confirming the said auction in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition. The petitioner has also submitted in the writ petition that another similarly situated person namely one Shri Rajednra Prasad Gupta, who also participated in the same auction was ultimately issued patta vide Exibit 12 for shop No.1 in the same scheme on 22.5.2003. The petitioner, therefore, claimed parity and alleged violation of Article 14 against the respondents. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition inter alia contending therein that in respect of 3/7 khasra No.835 in which part of the said land put to auction of commercial plot falls, on account of a suit filed by one Mr. Noor Mohammad S/o Anwar Husain and an status quo order was passed by the trial court in said suit filed on 11.11.2002, the said auction in favour of the present petitioner could not be confirmed and the Chairman of the UIT took a decision to cancel the said auction. The petitioner has contended that the said decision of the Chairman was never communicated to him. The respondents have further contended that after the said person Noor Mohammad applied for regularization of portion of the said khasra No.835 and the State Government allowed such regularization, the said suit was decided by the learned trial court on 4.2.2003. The learned trial court disposed of the suit by directing that till the case of regularization of the said person Noor Mohammad is decided by the State Government, he would not be dispossessed from the said land in question. It appears that after the said disposal of the suit on 22.5.2003, the respondent UIT issued patta of shop No.1 to one Mr. Rajenda Prasad Gupta. 4. I have heard learned counsels and perused the record as it was directed by the previous order dated 30th 4/7 January, 2008 directing the Secretary of the UIT, Bikaner to remain present in this Court along with relevant record and accordingly, the said Secretary is present in Court and has produced the relevant record. The parties were heard at length. 5. It appears that the respondent – UIT, Bikaner remained under a bonafide impression and belief that since the suit was filed by the said person Mr. Noor Mohammad in respect of entire land of khasra No.835, therefore, the portion of the said i.e. the commercial plots which were put to auction on 5.12.2002 by the respondent UIT, the said auction of shop No.6 in question in favour of the petitioner could not be confirmed. When the said suit was disposed of by the learned trial court upon the case of said Noor Mohammad becoming final, then the patta in respect of shop No.1 was issued in favour of Rajendra Prasad Gupta. As far as the shop No.6 is concerned, the office order was communicated by the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner dated 16.3.2003 (the date bears correction to be 16.3.2004) by which it was communicated to the petitioner that on account of litigation in respect of the said land the auction of plot No.6 in favour of the petitioner could not be confirmed and the ¼ of amount of Rs.34,500/- which was deposited by the petitioner was directed to be refunded 5/7 back to the petitioner. However, the said amount of refund was not accepted by the petitioner and the money remained deposited with the respondent UIT. During the course of arguments at the time of hearing, the Secretary, UIT, Bikaner clarified the position that even now the said land of plot No.6 is available as the road width has been reduced from the original plan of 40 ft. to 20 ft. between the two lanes of shops. She further submits that some of the shops in the said scheme have been constructed and they are existing at the site. 6. This Court is of the opinion that when the respondent UIT came to know of the suit in question filed by Mr. Noor Mohammad in respect of khasra No.835 and the respondent UIT was of the opinion that the said litigation could not affect the portion of khasra No.835 measuring 9 bighas which was allotted by the State Government in favour of the respondent UIT, they should have immediately approached the learned trial court for clarifying this position that the status quo order granted by the trial court did not affect the said Mukta Prasad Nagar Yojana to that extent and the auction of commercial plot held by them should be allowed to proceed further and should not be affected by the litigation pending before the said trial court. However, no such efforts appear to have 6/7 been made by the respondent UIT in the present case. If the respondent UIT under the aforesaid cloud of litigation and status quo order still put the said commercial plot to auction on 5.12.2002 and invited bids and even accepted the highest bid of the petitioner in respect of shop No.6 in question, the petitioner cannot be put to a disadvantageous position merely because respondent UIT failed to take adequate steps in the matter to clear such doubts and cloud of the litigation over the said scheme. The respondent UIT being a public body cannot be allowed to act in an arbitrary manner which put the public at large in doubtful situation like the present one. Be that as it may, since such doubt came to an end in the year 2003, the respondent UIT ought to have immediately acted upon its own promise of confirming the auction and executing the lease deed by holding such auction on 5.12.2002. In the meanwhile, if the Chairman of the respondent UIT took a decision cancelling the allotment of shop No.6 in favour of the petitioner, the same cannot be justified on whatever ground more so when a similarly situated persons namely Rajendra Prasad Gupta is clearly shown to have been allotted the shop No.1 and issued patta vide Exhibit 13 on 22.5.2003. The time gap between the auction of the shop on5.12.2002 and decision of the suit on 4.2.2003 is not 7/7 much and it is approximately 3 months only. Instead of getting cloud on litigation cleared over the land in question for which such auction was held, the Chairman of respondent UIT hurriedly cancelled such auction made in favour of the petitioner and the said Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Radheshyam vide Exhibit 4 dated 27.12.2003. However, on 22.5.2003 Exhibit 12 patta was issued by the respondent UIT to said Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta but not to the petitioner. No reason has been explained by the respondent UIT either in its reply or during the course of arguments for such a difference of their action qua the petitioner and qua said Rajendra Prasad Gupta S/o Radheshyam. This Court is of the opinion that arbitrariness in the action of the respondent UIT is thus writ large over the matter. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- in favour of the petitioner and the respondent UIT, Bikaner is directed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner for said shop No.6 by taking the balance amount of price which was fixed at the time of auction after deducting the money already deposited by the petitioner. [DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.7 babulal/