JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPURversusCHILDREN'S ACADEMY, JAIPUR AND ANR.

A              JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, .JAIPUR
                                           v.
                 CH.ILDREN'S ACADEMY, JAIPUR AND ANR.

                                NOVEMBER 3, 1995

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .I.I.]

            Rajasthan Urba11 Improvement Tmst (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules,
    1974:

                     Lan~Allotment to Educational Instillltions at conces-
c sionalR.17-Urban
        rates-Offer of allotment made to educational institutio11 on presC1ibed
    condition~on-compliance 011 the part of Institution-01igi11al offer can-
  celled and a fresh offer made-Institution not challenging the cancellation but
  claiming allotment with concession on original reseived price of first
  offe!'-f!eld, institutio11 not entitled to allotme11t with concession at the rate
D of 01igi11a/ offer which had been cancelled a11d was no longer subsisti11g.
          The respondents, an educational institution,"applied for and was, by
   order dated 12.8.1988, a allotted 15,000 sq. yard of land. The appellant,
   Jaipur Development Authority informed the respondents that it had fixed
E reserved price at Rs. 160 per s11. metre for Schools and asked the respon-
 . dents to deposit the total amount of Rs. 20,31,820.90 The respondents
   deposited only one lakh rupees. Though the Respondents were informed
   that Government had granted permission for allotment of land at 25% of
   the reserved price to the institution, and they asked to deposit the amount
   within 30 days, the respondents did not deposit the amount and conse-
F quently the allotment order dated 12.8.1988 was cancelled. However, a
   fresh offer was made to the respondents on the conditions prescribed and
   they were asked to deposit the amount within 30 days of the receipt of the
   offer. The respondents did not deposit the amount and sent a letter to the
   appellant staling that since the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust
G (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 envisaged tltat 50% of prevailing
   reserved price was to be paid, the demand was illegal. The respondents
   filed a Wl'it petition before the High Court, which directed the allotment
   on payment of 25% of the earlier price at the rate of Rs. 160 per sq. metre.
   Aggrieved, Jaipur Development Authority filed the appeal by special leave.

H           Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                         770
                 JAIPUR DEV. i\llTITORITY 1·. CJ LILDREN'S ACADEMY                771

           HELD : LL The High Court erroneously directed the allotment on                A
       paymmt of 25% of Rs. 1611 per sq. metre, which offer had already been
       cancelled and \\'as no longer subsisting. [773-F]

             1.2. In the first offer, the appellant had o!lered land at the rate of
       Rs. 160 per "I· metre as reserved price and the respondents had not
       complied with the same and the offer stood cancelled. The cancellation            B
       order was not challenged. The respondents did not pay the amount at
       reserved price and did not claim refund at 50% or 25%, as the case may
       be. They deposited only Rs. l lakh as against Rs. 21 lakhs. In 1990, when
       a second offer was made even then also the respondents did not comply
       with the offer; instead they approached the Cou"rt for a direction to give        C
       allotment to them at concessional rate of 25% of original value at Rs. 160
       per sq. metre. (773-B, E)

             1.3. The circular dated October 13, 1987 is only guideline for disposal
       of the lands for educational, religious, charitable or public institutions at
       concessional rate of 25o/ti as the reserved price, but the instructions \\-'ere   D
       to ensure uniformity in the allotment and charging the rates. [773-D)

               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10308 of
       1995.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.93 of the Rajasthan High             E
       Court in D.B.S.A No. 607 of 1991.
,,:·
               Dr. Shankar Ghosh and AK. Goel for the Appellant.

               C.L. Raj Kumar, P. Nara.">himhan and Arun~sll\var (iupta for the
                                                                                         F
       Respondents.

               The following Order of the Court was delivered :

               Leave granted.
                                                                                         G
            This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated Novem-
       ber Hl, 1993 of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in D.B. Sp!.
       Appeal No. 607 of 1991.

              Th.e facts are not in dispute. The first respondent is an educational
       institution which made a request to the appellant for allotment of 15,0110 H
    772                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   sq. yards of land in Malviya Nagar Scheme. By proceedings dated August         ·..-'
    12, 1988, the appellant had informed the respondents that it had fixed the
    reserved price at Rs. 160 per sq. metre for schools. Clause 5 says that the
    lease money can be changed after 15 years but it will not exceed 25% of
    the reserved price. Clause 15 of the offer envisages that on non- payment
    of the demanded amount within one month, the appellant will be entitled
B   to realise interest and cancel the allotment. Jn case of acceptance, Clause
    16 sub-clause (ii). provides that "if you accept the allotment of the above
    conditions, please deposit the amount within one month as under". The
    details of the amount have been mentioned and the total amount to be
    deposited was Rs. 20,31,820.90. Admittedly, the respondents had deposited
c   only one lakh. Thereafter, the Secretary to the appellant had communi-
    cated through a letter that the State Government had granted permission
    for allotment of the land at 25% of the reserved price to the respondent-
    Academy by letter dated August 12, 1988 and that is being returned. Then
    on January 12, 1990, pursuant to a letter written by the respondents on July
D   6, 1989, they also reiterated that they were willing to allot the land@ 25%
    of the then prevailing reserved price of the land and the amount mentioned
    thereunder has been specified. It was also stated expressly thus :

            "Please see that the cost of the land is deposited in favour of the
            Secretary, J.D.A., Jaipur, within 30 days from the date of issue of
E           this letter failing which the offer stands cancelled."

          The allotment order dated August 12, 1988 was thereafter cancelled.
    Thus the previous allotment stood cancelled and fresh offer was made
    subject to the respondents depositing the amount stated thereunder within
    30 days from the date of issue of the letter. Admittedly, the amount was
F
    not deposited, except writing a letter that the Rajasthan Urban Improve-
    ment Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 envisage that 50% of
    the prevailing reserved price was to be paid and the appellant's demand
    was illegal.

G            Ruic which has been relied upon reads thus :

             "No land shall be alloted for a price less than the sanctioned
             reserved price except for categories covered under Rule 17."

H         Rule 17 provides as under :
        JAIPUR DEV. AUTHORITY v. CHILDREN"S ACADEMY                       773

        "Lands for schools and other public and charitable institutions may      A
        be allotted on payment of 50'ih of the sanctioned reserved price
        or with the prior permission of the State Government free of any
        charge or at concessional rates.rr

       It would thus be seen that it may be incumbent upon the appellant         B
to allot the land but in case they choose to allot, they may allot on payment
of 50% of the sanctioned reserved price. It would be seen that in the first
offer, the appellant had offered land @ Rs. 160 per sq. meter as reserved
price and the respondents had not complied with the same. As stated
earlier, the offer stood cancelled. In 1990, when a second offer was made,
even then also, it was not complied with. The respondents have relied upon       C
the circular issued by the Government amplifying as to under what cir-
cumstances allotment may be made at a lesser price. The circular dated
October 13, 1987 is only guidelines for disposal of the lands for educational,
religious, charitable or public institution at concessional rate of 25% as the
reserved price, but the instructions were to ensure uniformity in the allot-     D
ment and charging the rates. The offer had been given charging @ Rs. 160
per sq. metre in the first instance and the respondents had not paid the
amount except Rs. 1 lakh: Had they paid the amount at reserved price and
claimed refund at 50% or 25% as the case may, as per their own case,
something could be said in their favour. But unfortunately they did not
accept the offer which was conditional. They had chosen to deposit only          E
Rs. 1 lakh as against Rs. 21 lakhs. As stated earlier, the cancellation order
was not challenged. When a fresh offer was made then also the respondents
had not complied with the offer; instead they went to the Court for a
direction to give them allotment at concessional rate of 25% of original
value at Rs. 160 per sq. metre. The Division Bench had thus erroneously          p
directed the allotment on payment of 25% of Rs. 160 per sq. yard, which
offer was not longer subsisting, since it was already cancelled. Under these
circumstances, the order of the High Court is clearly illegal.

      The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dis-
missed. No costs.                                                                G

R.P.                                                         Appeal allowed.