-1- CWP 3558/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3558 of 2001. Shri Pawan Sut Road Lines VERSUS State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order :::: 10.12.2010. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Mahesh Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Arvind Bhardwaj } Mr. Alok Sharma, with } Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal , Counsel for the Respondents **** 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 25'x40' in the aforesaid Scheme of the year 1990. The aforesaid Scheme of the year 1990 did not materialized. -2- CWP 3558/2001 Subsequently, in the year 2000 a fresh Scheme was drawn up comprising the original plots of the Scheme framed in 1990 and additional plots, which were included in the Transport Nagar Vistar Scheme. 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 conditions contained in the booklet it was laid down that in case the number of applicant for a 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 exceed 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. The petitioner was successful at the lottery and was allotted plot No.165 measuring 15x15ft., -3- CWP 3558/2001 as is evident from the allotment letter dated 30th April, 2001, Annexure-6 on record. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the leaned counsel for the petitioner that there are still plots of the size of 25'x40' 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 allotment exchange of the plot No.165 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 made vide Annexure-6 for plot No.165 for which the petitioner has already made the deposit as his allotment stands. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent U.I.T. Shri Alok Sharma submitted that so far as the availability of alternative plot is concerned, he does not have definite any information. Learned counsel, however, submits that in case any application is submitted by the petitioner for -4- CWP 3558/2001 allotment/exchange of the plot in lieu of the allotted plot No.165 measuring 25'x40', 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.165 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 origional 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 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-6 for a maximum period of 99 years, as is applicable in the case of all other allottees. -5- CWP 3558/2001 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-6 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. In the light of the above, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits an application on or before 15th February, 2011 for allotment of the plot size of 25x40ft., it is expected that the respondent would consider the said application for allotment upgrading the original allotment plot measuring 15x15ft. to 25x40ft. In case, application submitted by the petitioner is submitted, it is expected that the respondent would take a decision on the same on or before 15th March, 2011. In the event of the application submitted by the petitioner being allowed, the respondents would be entitled to charge the present market rate for the difference of the area between the originally allotted plot of 15x15ft. and new allotment of 25x40ft. In case, the application of the petitioner -6- CWP 3558/2001 submitted for allotment of the plot 25'x40' is not accepted the original allotment made in favour of the petitioner for the plot measuring 15x15ft. vide Annexure-6 dated 30th April, 2001 for plot No.165 would stand revived and the respondents would execute the lease for the aforesaid plot No.165 in favour of the petitioner. The possession of the land of plot No.165 or the revised alloted plot measuring 25x40ft. whichever is applicable in the light of the above should be handed over on or before 1st April, 2011. The period of the lease shall remain 99 years commencing from 30th April, 2001 to the original date of allotment. However, for the period 30th April, 2001 upto the 1st April, 2011 the petitioner would not be liable to pay any rent, as the possession was not taken by the petitioner. The petitioner would be liable to pay the lease and other charges with effect from 1st April, 2011. With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of. (Dalip Singh) J. ashok/