The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21 April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior with the following directions: i)
The Respondents are directed to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner of remaining area of the land i.e. meters in his favour for a consideration of Rs.2,06,67,966/- and the auction bidder/respondent was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,91,67,966/- upto the period of 31 October, 3 1999 in addition to the earnest money of Rs.15 lakhs in four instalments in the following manner: (i) Rs.51,66,922/- by 31.10.1997 (for 25% amount) (ii) Rs.51,66,922/- by 30.06.1998 (for first instalment) (iii) Rs.51,66,922/- by 28.10.1999 (for second instalment) (iv) Rs.36,36,990/- by 31.10.1999 (for third instalment) 3.
The amount deposited by the respondent on various dates be stated as under: 1 27.9.1997 Rs. 2,00,000.00 3 31.12.1997 Rs.
It is also not disputed that despite the respondent failed to deposit the instalments in terms of conditions of the bid document by 31 October, 1999 and the final amount being deposited on 25 August, 2005, no action was taken by the appellants either for cancellation of the bid or for forfeiture of the amount deposited by the respondent and what transpires between the parties is not made available on record but the fact is that the lease deed was finally executed for 18262.89 sq. meter plus the component of interest for the said amount for the delay in deposit of Rs.69,97,087/- total Rs.2,02,18,437/- and the lease deed was executed by the respondent without any demur.
meters in addition to the lease earlier executed in favour of the respondent and 6 the Division Bench of the High Court while accepting the prayer made by the respondent, directed the appellants to execute the lease deed in favour of the respondent for the remaining area of 9625.50 sq. Learned counsel for the respondent informed this Court that on 16 March, 2023, although it was not reflected in the order, the respondent was called upon as to whether the prevalent circle rate in reference to the subject property in question is acceptable, the appellant Authority can be called upon to examine, but we find from the record that there was no such order as referred to by the respondent’s learned counsel, the fact is that whatever circle rate prevalent at the relevant point of time of which we have made a reference, was not considered to be viable by the respondent and once this amicable resolution has failed, the matter was being heard on merits.
Although, in the ordinary course, since the conditions of bid were not complied with by the respondent (successful bidder), the auction ought to have been cancelled, but the Authority after due deliberations, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, granted indulgence to the respondent and taking into consideration the fact that the last instalment was deposited by him on 25 August, 2005, with a break-up of principal amount and the component of interest thereof, the lease deed was duly executed between the parties without demur, obviously with the consent of the parties, as they are signatories to the document/instrument for 18262.89 sq. Learned counsel submits that the High Court has committed a serious manifest error in completely overlooking the fact that once the lease deed was executed without demur on 29 March, 2006 and the transaction initiated pursuant to a tender floated by the Authority on 13 March, 1997 finally concluded by execution of the lease deed without demur and that being a pure business/commercial transaction entered with the open eyes, there was no justification available to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution with a direction to execute the lease deed for the remaining area of land i.e. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the land available at the disposal of the Authority is always to be put to commercial use and disposed of in terms of the land disposal rules, but in the peculiar facts of the case, the Authority may consider the claim of the respondent if they are interested for the remaining area of land i.e.
meter for a total value of Rs.2,06,67,966/- which was to be 12 paid in four instalments and after making the advance payment of Rs.15 lakhs as earnest money, the remaining four instalments were to be deposited on 31 October, 1997, 30 June, 1998, 28 October, 1999 and the last instalment by 31 October, 1999. meters without demur on 29 March, 2006 and the transaction stood concluded after execution of the lease deed, which was initiated pursuant to a tender floated by the appellant on 13 March, 1997 and since the lease deed was to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, it was nowhere open to be altered or amended even by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
meter and that alone has been taken care of by the High Court by directing to execute the lease deed for the remainder of the land, in our considered view, is bereft of merit for the reason that so far as the tender floated by the Authority on 13 March, 1997 is concerned, the transaction was concluded on execution of the lease deed executed without demur for 18262.89 sq. meters on 29 March, 2006 and after the transaction is concluded and the instrument being registered under the law, it was not open to either party to question at least in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the mandamus issued by the High Court to execute the lease deed for the remainder of the area without 15 any consideration is completely contrary to the settled principles of law and deserves to be set aside.
Before we conclude, we would like to observe that the litigation is pending for sufficiently long time and keeping in view the escalation in the value of the property in question based on 16 commercial principles, we consider it appropriate to observe that the respondent being originally the bidder for the remainder of the land as well, let one opportunity be made available to the respondent for the remainder of the area on priority basis on the prevalent circle rate notified by the Government.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/evaluation-of-auction-process-and-locus-of-interested-bidders/
Taking that into consideration, we make it clear that let the first opportunity be afforded to the respondent to purchase the remaining area of the land which was a part of the land originally put to auction in terms of tender floated on 13 March, 1997 for 27887.50 sq. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHANU PRATAP SINGH (2023 INSC 393)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008549-008549 / 2014
