Case: U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad  Vs. Om Prakash Sharma

The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the factual and rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, in view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders under challenge in these appeals are required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.3. The ranking of the parties is referred to in the judgment as has been assigned before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly for the sake of convenience.4. The first defendant (appellant herein) is a statutory body created under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 for development of colonies, residential plots, commercial plots and complexes in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The first defendant on 4.3.1977 published in the local newspapers for auction of nine shops and a plot earmarked for Cinema Hall measuring 3441.94 sq. meters in Izzat Nagar, Scheme No.1, Block C and D in Bareilly District specifying the date of auction and furnishing necessary information. According to the plaintiff, the reserved price of the Cinema plot was fixed at Rs.1,80,200/and the auction of the property was conducted on 11.3.1977 under the supervision of one Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Bisen, the then Assistant Housing Commissioner of the first defendant Board. In the auction, the plaintiff (respondent herein) offered the highest bid of Rs.1,31,500/i.e. 20% of the bid amount, plus Rs.500/as earnest money.5. In response to therepresentations made to the first defendant on 24.5.1977 and 1.6.1977 asking for issuance of the allotment letter in his favour, the Assistant Housing Commissioner informed the plaintiff vide his letters dated 26.5.1977 and 8.7.1977 stating that the third defendant Housing Commissioner of the Board had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded by way of demand draft.6. The plaintiff filed original suit bearing No.143 of 1977 in the Civil Court, Bareilly challenging the action of the first defendant with regard to the allotment of plot and in the said suit the first defendant filed written statement. The learned Civil Judge, Bareilly after conducting the trial, answered the issues framed by it, on proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence in favour of the plaintiff and passed its judgment and order dated 17.12.1977 decreeing the suit as prayed by the plaintiff.7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, the first defendant filed First Appeal No.107 of 1978 before the High Court urging various legal contentions. The High Court by its order dated 20th May, 1987 after examining rival factual and legal contentions set aside the judgment and order of the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court for its reconsideration. After the remand order passed by the High Court, the first defendant filed its additional written statement before the trial court. The trial court considered the entire pleadings, evidence on record and examined three more witnesses. Again it passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 24.9.1993. Against the said judgment, the defendant filed first Appeal No.67 of 98 before the District Judge. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal with costs by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court by its order dated 2.2.2000.8. On 10.2.2000, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the plaintiff filed Second Appeal No.113 of 2001 before the High Court urging various legal contentions. The High Court on 28.5.2010 allowed the appeal by answering the substantial questions of law framed by it in the Second Appeal and set aside the judgment dated 2.2.2000 of the first appellate court.

Reasoning:
37. The substantial questions framed by the court in the second appeal did not arise for its consideration. The High Court ought to have noticed that the legal right claimed by the plaintiff seeking relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of the pleadings is wholly untenable in law. In view of the fact that no legal right accrued in his favour in the absence of a concluded contract which was said to have existed by mere offering of highest bid in relation to the property in question to obtain the property on lease for a period of 90 years amounting to disposal of the property of the first defendant being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, no right was accrued upon the bidder in relation to the property in question. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and the suit filed on the basis of the alleged cause of action did not arise. Hence, the trial court could not have granted any relief by not framing the relevant and proper issue and answering the same. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside by the first appellate court by recording reasons. It also did not address and examine the points that arose for consideration as framed by this Court in this judgment. However, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate court in setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the suit is perfectly legal and valid. The said judgment has been erroneously interfered with by the High Court by framing substantial questions of law. In fact and in law, the aforesaid substantial questions do not arise for its consideration and answer the same in favour of the plaintiff, which are erroneous in law.