-1- CWP 1789/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1789 of 2002. Auto Transport Company. VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 10.12.2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Prashant Chahar, on behalf of Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Mahesh Sharma } Mr. Alok Sharma, with } Counsel for the Respondents Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal } **** By the Court :- Facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, respondent No.2 herein drew up a Scheme for the allotment of plots to the Transport Companies within its jurisdiction so that all of them are established in our area outside the main City so that the heavy traffic may be eased out and congestion of traffic in the City could be reduced. Initially, the Scheme was drawn up in the year 1990. The petitioner applied for a plot of the size of 40'x90' in the aforesaid Scheme of the year 1990. The aforesaid Scheme of the year 1990 did not materialized. -2- CWP 1789/2002 Subsequently, in the year 2000 a fresh Scheme was drawn up, which included 24 plots of the size of 40'x90', which were originally available in the year 1990 and additional 39 plots, which were included in the Transport Nagar Vistar Scheme. Thus, there were all 63 plots of the size 40'x90' available with the U.I.T. Kota for the allotment in the year 2000. As per the booklet containing the terms and conditions of the allotment, condition No.14 provided that an applicant, who had applied in the year 1990 would get priority over fresh applicants of the year 2000. Under Para 14 of the condition it was laid down that in case the number of applicant for the particular plot size is equal to the number of plots available the plots would be allotted on the basis of a lottery. In case, the number of applicants exceeds the number of plots unsuccessful candidate at the lottery would be offered the plots of smaller size and in that event the amount, which has been deposited by the applicants for the bigger size of plot, which is in excess of the price for allotment of smaller size plot would be the same liable for being returned/adjusted against the costs of the plot. -3- CWP 1789/2002 The petitioner was successful at the lottery and was allotted plot No.41, as is evident from the allotment letter dated 30th April, 2001, Annexure-7 on record. Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.4,72,266/- vide challan Annexure-8 under protest. The reason why the petitioner was not willing to accept plot No.41 at that time was that the plot was not level and was unsuitable for the purpose of his business. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that there are still plots of the size of 40'x90' available with the U.I.T. Kota in the aforesaid Transport Nagar/Transport Nagar Vistar Scheme framed in the year 2000 and in case the respondent U.I.T. is now willing to consider exchange of the plot No.41 for any other plot, which may be available the petitioner would be willing to accept the same. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that in the event the petitioner cannot be allotted an alternative plot, the petitioner would accept the allotment vide Annexure-7 for plot No.41 for which the petitioner has already made the deposit vide Annexure-8 challan as his allotment stands. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -4- CWP 1789/2002 U.I.T. Shri Alok Sharma submitted that so far as the availability of alternative plot is concerned, he does not have any definite information. Learned counsel, however, submits that in case any application is submitted by the petitioner for allotment/exchange of the plot in lieu of the allotted plot No.41 measuring 40'x90', the respondents would be willing to consider the said application submitted by the petitioner and take a decision on the same in accordance with law, otherwise possession of plot No.41 would be handed over to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in case the petitioner is allotted the plot, the petitioner not having taken possession of the plot since the original allotment and having challenged the allotment before this Court the petitioner should not be subjected to the liability of depositing the lease amount for the period the matter has remained pending before this Court. So far as the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that so far as the period of lease of 99-years is concerned, as per the allotment letter and the terms and -5- CWP 1789/2002 conditions of the Scheme the same cannot be allowed to be altered in the case of the petitioner and that would remain unchanged as per Para No.1 of the allotment letter Annexure-7 for a maximum period of 99 years, as is applicable in the case of all other allottees. However, since the petitioner has not taken possession of the plot in dispute, it is made clear that for the period commencing from the allotment vide Annexure-7 upto the date when the petitioner is actually delivered possession of the plot, the petitioner shall not be liable to pay the rent for the said plot. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions subject to the condition that the aforesaid directions shall hold valid upto 15th February, 2011. In case, the petitioner does not submit any application on or before 15th February, 201,1 along with the certified copy of this order before the U.I.T. Kota, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit under the present order. The respondents on the receipt of the said application shall take a decision on the same within 30- days thereafter. If representation submitted by the petitioner is allowed by the U.I.T. or the original plot -6- CWP 1789/2002 No.41, as allotted under the allotment letter dated 30th April, 2001 is accepted by the petitioner the possession of the plot in dispute would be handed over to the petitioner on or before 1st April, 2011 subject to the above directions. Consequently, petition as well as stay application stand disposed of as agreed. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/