Case: SMT. KASTURIBAI SUKHARAM KHANDELWAL TRUST Vs. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

supporting the submissions, further submits that apart from the fact that 2 nd respondent had not submitted any application for allotment pursuant to an advertisement dated 7 th September, 1989 required under Disposal Regulations, 1987, the authority was of the view that it will not be advisable to provide adjoining plots to one community and after revisiting the factual matrix of the matter considered it appropriate to cancel the decision for allotment made in favour of the 2 nd respondent and there being no error in the decision making process held by the authority, the Division Bench of the High Court committed manifest error in directing to revisit the whole process of allotment and that needs interference by this Court.10. Learned counsel further submits that so far as the allotment made in favour of 4 th respondent(LIC) is concerned, it has nothing to do with the allotment made in reference to the trust which is impugned in the proceedings and calling upon the 4 th respondent(LIC) to participate in the whole process was not justiciable.11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and no one has put an appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent despite service and with their assistance perused the material available on record.12. Indisputedly, the 2 nd respondent had not submitted any application for allotment of land pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of land dated 7 th September, 1989, despite being published in the local newspaper. At the same time, application of the appellant Trust was found to be in order complying with the necessary requirements as indicated in the advertisement and after due scrutiny of the applications, plot ad-measuring 50,000 sq. ft was allotted to the appellant in Scheme No. 75-C for community hall by letter of allotment dated 2 nd July, 1990.13. After noticing that the 2 nd respondent had submitted application for allotment of land for community hall on 30 th September, 1988 directly to the Indore Development Authority and to the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh dated 29 th December, 1988 which was erroneously processed in the office of the authority and letter of allotment of land was issued ad-measuring 30,000 sq. ft. in Scheme No. 74-C dated 2 nd July, 1990 and later noticing the fact that two separate allotments have been made in the same scheme to two separate trusts of the same community and that being an apparent error, the decision was taken by the authority vide its Resolution No. 21 dated 11 th February, 1991 to confirm the allotment of 50,000 sq. ft land in favour of the present appellant at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. ft and application of the 2 nd respondent seeking allotment of land was rejected.14. It was not the case of either party that the appellant Trust either failed to fulfil necessary conditions as referred to under the advertisement dated 7 th September, 1989 pursuant to which the applications were invited or failed to fulfil necessary requisite conditions for allotment under any statutory enactment or Disposal Regulations, 1987 or there was any error being committed by the authority in its decision making process while the allotment of land was made in favour of the appellant Trust. To the contrary, the emphasis of the 2 nd respondent while approaching to the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was that vide Resolution No. 21 dated 11 th February, 1991, the authority has cancelled their allotment of land without affording opportunity of hearing and has failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and that appears to be the reason prevailed upon to the Division Bench of the High Court directing the Indore Development Authority to revisit the matter of allotment of land and take a decision in accordance with law.15. In the instant facts and circumstances, the facts remain indisputed that the 2 nd respondent has not submitted any application for allotment of land pursuant to an advertisement dated 7 th September, 1989. In the ordinary course of business, there was no justification for the authority to consider the application of the 2 nd respondent which was not in due compliance and in terms of the advertisement in reference to which the applications were invited. That appears to be an apparent error which was committed and indeed such application was not open to scrutiny and for allotment of land as desired by 2 nd respondent and taking note of the peculiar fact situation, calling upon the 2 nd respondent and affording an opportunity of hearing and for comparative assessment of claim, will remain an empty formality and no purpose was to be served.16. In addition to it, the 2 nd respondent (writ petitioner) despite service, has chosen not to appear and participate in the proceedings before this Court, it appears that he is not interested to pursue and to put its claim for alleged allotment. That apart, the allotment made to the LIC, in any manner, have no nexus to the inter se dispute between the two trusts with regard to allotment of land and thus, there was no justification for the Division Bench at least to call upon respondent no. 4 LIC to be a part of the proceedings which the Indore Development Authority was to undertake in compliance of the impugned judgment in the instant proceedings.17. After going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that directing the Indore Development Authority to revisit the matter afresh at this stage when the lease deed of the plot has been executed and the appellant has raised construction and is running a community hall for the benefit of the public at large and at the same time, the 2 nd respondent has shown complete disinterest in the proceedings, no purpose otherwise will be served if the parties are remitted to the authorities to examine their respective claims in compliance of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and no one has put an appearance on behalf of the contesting respondent despite service and with their assistance perused the material available on record.12. Indisputedly, the 2 nd respondent had not submitted any application for allotment of land pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of land dated 7 th September, 1989, despite being published in the local newspaper. At the same time, application of the appellant Trust was found to be in order complying with the necessary requirements as indicated in the advertisement and after due scrutiny of the applications, plot ad-measuring 50,000 sq. ft was allotted to the appellant in Scheme No. 75-C for community hall by letter of allotment dated 2 nd July, 1990.In the instant facts and circumstances, the facts remain indisputed that the 2 nd respondent has not submitted any application for allotment of land pursuant to an advertisement dated 7 th September, 1989. In the ordinary course of business, there was no justification for the authority to consider the application of the 2 nd respondent which was not in due compliance and in terms of the advertisement in reference to which the applications were invited. That appears to be an apparent error which was committed and indeed such application was not open to scrutiny and for allotment of land as desired by 2 nd respondent and taking note of the peculiar fact situation, calling upon the 2 nd respondent and affording an opportunity of hearing and for comparative assessment of claim, will remain an empty formality and no purpose was to be served.16. In addition to it, the 2 nd respondent (writ petitioner) despite service, has chosen not to appear and participate in the proceedings before this Court, it appears that he is not interested to pursue and to put its claim for alleged allotment. That apart, the allotment made to the LIC, in any manner, have no nexus to the inter se dispute between the two trusts with regard to allotment of land and thus, there was no justification for the Division Bench at least to call upon respondent no. 4 LIC to be a part of the proceedings which the Indore Development Authority was to undertake in compliance of the impugned judgment in the instant proceedings.17. After going through the material on record, we are of the considered view that directing the Indore Development Authority to revisit the matter afresh at this stage when the lease deed of the plot has been executed and the appellant has raised construction and is running a community hall for the benefit of the public at large and at the same time, the 2 nd respondent has shown complete disinterest in the proceedings, no purpose otherwise will be served if the parties are remitted to the authorities to examine their respective claims in compliance of the impugned judgment of the Division Bench.