Case Title: Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rashtriy Sansthan versus Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4386/2005
Decided on: 11/07/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Facts of the case:
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an educational society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Act. The petitioner-society applied for allotment of land before the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur and vide allotment order no. 676 dated 19.07.2001, 6,350 sq. meters of land situated at Sector 5, Mansarovar was allotted to the petitioner-society under the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970 (Mansarovar Yojna). In pursuance to the allotment, the petitioner-society immediately deposited an amount of Rs. 97,790/-.
The petitioner, being an educational society, wrote to the Rajasthan Housing Board for subsidized rates at the government level, for the allotment so made and accordingly, the file of the petitioner was sent to the Urban Development and Housing Department, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan. In this regard, a letter was also written by the Chief Estate Manager, Rajasthan Housing Board to the aforesaid Department wherein it was informed that allotment of land can be made to educational institutes at a concessional rate. Thereafter, on 17.06.2003, the erstwhile President of the Society, Sh. Tara Chand Chandel, wrote a letter to the Rajasthan Housing Board that in the allotment letter so issued to the petitioner-society, the use of the land has been mentioned as “Samudayeek Kendra” i.e. community centre, whereas, it should be amended to reflect the land use as “Shikshan Sansthan” i.e. educational institute.
However, vide order dated 12.03.2004, without communicating the decision of the State Government qua the applicability of subsidized prices for educational institutes, the Rajasthan Housing Board passed an order whereby the allotment made in favour of the petitioner-society was cancelled and the amount so deposited by the petitioner-society to the tune of Rs. 97,790/- was forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner-society wrote a letter on 10.08.2004 to the Rajasthan Housing Board expressing its willingness to deposit the entire balance amount. Despite the same, and without any notice of cancellation, a letter was received by the petitioner-society on 27.11.2004 whereby the petitioner’s request for depositing the remaining amount was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner-society argued that the aforesaid actions of the Rajasthan Housing Board are entirely arbitrary and illegal, the same being in contravention of the rules and provisions for allotment and allocation at concessional rates prescribed for educational institution.
Judgement:
In this regard, it is pertinent to note that instead of fulfilling the conditions incorporated within the letter dated 19.07.2001 qua the deposition of the balance amount, the petitioner-society did not act bonafidely and rather repeatedly made attempts vide communications dated 02.07.2001 (Annexure R/2) and 17.06.2003 (Annexure R/4) among others, to obtain possession of the land so allotted without paying the due balance amount in a timely manner, and asking for repeated extensions to effectuate the payment as required by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board.
In the present facts, the allotment so made in favour of the petitioner-society was conditional in nature, duly subject to the deposition of the balance amount within a period of three months from date of issuance of the allotment letter. Therefore, as the petitioner society failed to fulfill the specific terms and conditions incorporated within allotment letter dated 19.07.2001, which were in sync with the Disposal of Property Regulation, 1970, the actions of the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board seem justified.
Therefore, in light of the observations made herein-above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Analysis:
The petitioner-society did not act bonafide and rather repeatedly made attempts vide communications dated 02.07.2001 (Annexure R/2) and 17.06.2003 (Annexure R/4) among others, to obtain possession of the land so allotted without paying the due balance amount in a timely manner, and asking for repeated extensions to effectuate the payment as required by the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board. Therefore, present writ petition stands dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has mre than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by: Mahima Saini
