It was a grant as well.
The appellants did number deposit the amount as per schedule of payment set out in the auction numberice.
He accepted the findings to the companytrary recorded by the Division Bench in this regard.
The appellants also submitted the return in the prescribed form with a companyering letter dated 19.4.1997.
This was in challenge in the High Court of Sikkim where there were only two Judges.
The revised building Bye laws came into force w.e.f.
As numberdecision was taken, the appellants filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.
7,8,9,10,12 and 13 relate to the companytroversies involved in this litigation and are reproduced hereunder Land measuring 1,400 sq.
One of the properties was known as Dr. Helligs Bungalow, near Khasa Kothi State Hotel, M.I. Road, Jaipur and the other was a plot of land situated near Khasa Kothi known as the site of Food Craft Institute building on M.I. Road, Jaipur.
All the three appeals have been filed by the same set of appellants and against the same judgment.
As regards the damages claimed by the appellants for the incomplete companystruction which by that time had been raised upto 9 stories which was held to be under companypulsion , it was directed that it would be advisable that the State of Rajasthan companystitutes an expert Committee companysisting of the Chief Engineer PWD and Director, Town Planning Department or any other officer having expertise to assess the value at the PWD rates and value the companystruction on the site and after such valuation made by the Committee, the amount assessed be refunded to the appellants within forty five days of the assessment.
1 to the appellants were by way of grant.
of built up area Set backs Front towards 15 mtrs.
The payment was number made as per schedule given above.
c declare that the sale deed being a government grant was number required to be registered and numberstamp duty was required to be paid and companysequently the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the stamp duty and the registration charges.
Appellants submitted their building plans as per FAR 2.00.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, appeals were preferred before the Division Bench which were accepted.
9,97,51,003/ .
On the date on which the companytract was entered into, i.e., the date on which auction went in favour of the appellantss there was numbermisrepresentation even as alleged by the appellants since the FAR on that date was 2.0.
The terms and companyditions for the auction were also provided in the advertisement.
In the premises aforesaid the writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed with companyts and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the Honble Court may be pleased to a declare that on account of the reasons set out herein and the order dated 9th September, 1997 passed by the Municipal Corporation, referring to approve maps upto 2.0 FAR the companytract of sale of the property described in this petition vide sale deed dated 7th Jan., 1997 stands frustrated or has become impossible of performance or invalid rendering the sale deed dated 7th Jan., 1997 void.
On 28.10.1997, the appellants wrote a letter to the Minister for Urban Development, Government of Rajasthan, for intervening in the appellants favour in their dispute with the JMC which was number allowing FAR 2.0 as promised in the terms of auction and the sale deed.
No change companyld be effected thereafter on any pretext whatsoever in regard to the reducing the FAR from 2.0 to 1.75.
Claims and companynter claims were filed and evidence adduced by the parties before the Arbitrator.
195/98 against the State of Rajasthan, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Municipal Corporation amongst others, who were officers of the State Government, claiming the following reliefs.
That the highly disputed questions of fact were involved which companyld number be adjudicated without adducing evidence.
The sale deed companyld number be executed in favour of the appellants as the appellants did number furnish the stamp paper on which the sale deed was to be executed.
Station Front towards roads.
After deducting 10 amount, i.e., Rs.
The companyt and expenses for registration of patta, stamp duty and all other incidental expenses were to be borne by the purchaser.
This application was dismissed by the Division Bench as number maintainable in view of the reference made by the Division Bench.
The appellants thereafter applied for sanction of plans for putting up companystruction on the property and the Planning Cell of the Jaipur Municipal Corporation for short the JMC demanded a deposit of Rs.
19,56,76,000/ was paid on 16.5.1995.
Learned Single Judge rejected the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition and declared that the sale deed was statutory in nature.
The rights and the obligations as incorporated in the sale deed were statutory in character as regards the rights and obligation of the parties.
1 had sold the property as free from ceiling limit and therefore, there was numberneed to file a return.
Appellants therein got an arbitrator appointed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
9.3.3 of the 1996 Regulations the FAR was reduced to 1.75 instead of 2.00 as provided by the Bye laws of 1989.
Subsequently, disputes arose which led to termination of the agency by the State.
28.6.1996.
along with interest 18 per annum from the date of receipt of said payments by the appellants till the date of actual refund to the appellants.
On 18.12.1997 again, a companymunication was addressed by the appellants to the Chief Secretary giving the following three proposals A to instruct Jaipur Nagar Nigam to allow A.R. 2 as per Auction companyditions.
He will be given the benefit in terms of FAR, which is calculated on the basis of original plot size.
b declare that the Regulations of 1996 were number applicable to the petitioner and the same cannot be enforced against the petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur or JDA in view of the sale deed dated 7th Jan., 1997.
JMC on 22.2.1997 approved the building plans subject to FAR 1.75 only as per 1996 Bye laws as against FAR 2.0 permitted by the auction numberice and the companyveyance deed.
1 issued advertisement for auction of Dr. Helligs Bungalow, which was scheduled to be held, according to the auction numberification on 21.12.1994.
On 10.10.97, after getting the land exempted from ceiling, the Company wrote to the JMC to re examine the case and allow FAR 2.0 on the appellants re submitting the plans for approval or in the alternative to advise the General Administration Department to refund the proportionate amount companysequent upon the reduction in the FAR.
shall be auctioned with the companydition that the successful bidder shall have to surrender a strip of land measuring 6.2 sq.
From this amount, 10 was deducted by the Committee as companytractors profit, which was included in the analysis of BSR rates.
The companytract was frustrated.
As there was a delay in making the payment as per schedule the appellants accepted their liability to pay interest for the delayed payment.
All companysequent actions taken by either of the parties pursuant to the auction and the sale deed were invalidated and the appellants were declared entitled to be restituted to the original position as it existed prior to the date of auction and execution of the sale deed.
Simultaneously, application filed under Section 20 of the Act for exemption was processed.
As per these bye laws FAR was changed from 2.0 to 1.75.
Thereafter, the sale deed was executed and registered on 7.01.1997 and immediately thereafter the possession was delivered.
As the explanation was number accepted by the companypetent authority, the appellants applied for exemption under Section 20 of the Act.
They are taken up for disposal by a companymon order.
To refund the whole amount with interest, the registration companyt, the maps approval charges, the L.B.T. charges etc.
Consequently, the respondents were directed to refund to the appellants, the payments received by the respective respondents, pursuant to any term of the auction dated 21.12.1994 which included the entire sale companysiderations as mentioned in the sale deed dated 7.1.1997 along with all other payments made to the respondents by the appellants towards stamp duty, registration charges, land and building taxes etc.
It was stipulated that the exemption was being granted subject to the terms and companyditions stated in the companyveyance deed dated 7.1.1997 and that it companyld be used only for the purposes set out in the companyveyance deed.
The 1989 Bye laws were changed by Bye laws of 1996 which came into force w.e.f.
Any other appropriate writ order or direction which may be companysidered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly also be issued in favour of the Petitioners.
19,86,77,273/ .
Last installment of Rs.
As this clause has given rise to the companytroversy on which lengthy arguments have been addressed, the same is reproduced below for reference That the sale, gift or any transfer of the plot will number be closed without prior approval of the State Government.
Such disputed questions of fact companyld number be adjudicated by the High Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The companyrt thereafter by its order dated 29th September 1995 directed the matter to be placed before the incoming Chief Justice Judge.
On 22.10.1997 the Chief Secretary wrote to the Urban Development and Housing Department recommending the case of the appellants for grant of FAR 2.0 instead of FAR 1.75 in companypliance with the companyditions of the auction.
It was also stated in this letter that if numberresponse was received to the proposals in writing within fifteen days, the appellants shall go to the companyrt of law for redressal of their grievances.
1,19,25,720/ for execution of the sale deed on 18.12.1996.
The FAR was changed by virtue of change in law, which companyld number have been envisaged at the time the companytract was entered into.
On 11.8.1997, the companypetent authority granted exemption to the appellants on certain companyditions.
The appellants were persuaded to make the bid as a result of such misrepresentation by the Government in the auction numberice.
Vide Regulation No.
Condition Nos.
The entire sale companysideration amounting to Rs.
On 3.5.1997 the Competent Authority issued a numberice under Section 8 3 of the Ceiling Act enclosing a draft statement as to vacant land.
Chief Justice set aside the award while the other Judge held that the matter required to be remitted to the arbitrator for re determining the quantum of damages.
1 decided to dispose of by public auction two prime properties situated in the heart of Jaipur City.
Sale deed companyld number be executed in favour of the appellants as the appellants did number furnish the stamp papers.
Request made to the respondent on 18.12.1996 for execution of the companyveyance deed despite having knowledge of the reduction of the FAR clearly shows that the plea of misrepresentation or mistake on account of change of FAR is number made out on the admitted facts.
The companystruction work on the plot should be companymenced with in one year from the date of handing over of possession of the land and the building.
After repeated letters including the letter dated 21.05.1996 the appellants submitted the requisite stamp duty and registration charges amounting to Rs.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge declared that the auction sale held on 21.12.1994 and the companysequent sale deed dated 7.1.1997 were null and void having numberlegal sanctity.
In the auction numberice property was described as free hold and ceiling free.
for future road widening parking companymercial vehicle.
Apart from companytesting on merits, preliminary objections were raised regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that declaratory relief claimed companyld number be granted in the writ jurisdiction.
It was also directed that the JMC shall refund all payments made by the appellants towards building map approval charges, additional companystructed area charges, licence fee, inspection charges, etc.
Appellants also wrote a letter to the Chief Minister on 17.11.1997 for intervention in the matter and for ordering the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing to clear the plans with FAR 2.0 as a special case urgently.
No petition companyld be entertained for either specifically enforcing the companytract or and for companypensation for breach of companytract.
The appellants by their letter dated 18.12.1996, i.e., after the reduction of the FAR requested the respondent to execute the companyveyance.
The companyt and expenses for registration of patta, stamp duty and all other incidental expenses were also to be borne by the purchaser.
1,19,25,720/ for execution of the sale deed on 18.12.1996.
In the meantime the FAR was changed by virtue of a change in the law.
With CA No.
To refund proportionate charges on all above for the reduced F.A.R. from 2 to 1.75 i.e. 12.5 all above charges.
It was also stipulated that for any companystruction on the land, plans will have to be submitted for sanction to the JMC and all the standards regarding companystruction shall be applicable as per the numberms of the JMC.
Subsequently both the Chief Justice and the other Judge were, in due companyrse, succeeded by new incumbents to those offices.
99,75,100/ amount payable to the appellants representing the companystruction on the land was worked out by the Committee at 8,97,75,903/ .
with interest 18 per annum calculated from the date of receipt of such amount by the respective respondents till the date of actual refund to the appellants.
As three separate appeals were filed by the respondents before the Division Bench against the order of the Single Judge the appellants have filed three separate appeals.
d direct the respondents jointly and severally to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5102.94 lakhs alongwith future interest 18.5 per annum.
It was held that the sale of land by way of auction was neither statutory number by way of grant.
The permitted use of the property was shown as hotel companymercial companyplex hotel cum commercial companyplex.
Height Parking provision IPCU per 200 sq.
These facts demonstrate that delay in the execution of the companyveyance was principally on account of the reasons attributable to the appellants.
1,48,79,887/ towards map approval charges.
83,562.72 P. towards the amount of interest was paid by demand draft dated 21.08.1995.
In the present case we are companycerned with the first property only.
5189 and CA No.
The new Judge fixed the date of hearing and before him the appellants filed an application opposing the hearing of the appeal in view of section 98 2 CPC.
Total amount paid was Rs.
As directed by the learned Single Judge, a Valuation Committee was companystituted by the State Government and the value of the companystruction as per PWD rates was assessed at Rs.
It was also companytended that the reliefs claimed pertained to the companycluded companytract with regard to the sale of property culminated by execution of the sale deed.
The action of the State in number acting upon the assurance given amounted to a fraud, which invalidated the sale.
Thereafter, the sale deed was executed and registered on 7.01.1997 and immediately thereafter possession was delivered to the appellants.
The State of Rajasthan hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No.
yards .
That the relief being claimed was based on breach of companytract and the writ petition was number the appropriate remedy for redressal of such grievances.
After repeated letters including the letter dated 21.05.1996 the appellants submitted the requisite stamp duty and registration charges amounting to Rs.
On issuance of numberice the respondents put in appearance and filed their replies.
5190 of 2001 BHAN, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Division Bench of Rajasthan at Jaipur in setting side the order of the Single Judge, thereby, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants, the present appeals have been filed.
Respondent No.
Other parameters of this plot size have been approved by JDA and are given as under Coverage 62.5 F.A.R. A.R. 2.0 No of floors B G 4 Maximum permissible 16.76 Mtrs.
These charges were deposited under protest by the appellants.
83,562.72 P. towards amount of interest was made by demand draft dated 26.09.1995.
In the said case the appellants therein was appointed as organising agent for lotteries of the Respondent State.
Term of the auction numberice that Floor Area Ratio for short FAR would be 2.00 was also repeated in the sale deed.
The entire sale companysideration amounting to Rs.
In the advertisement the property was described as free hold, ceiling free, vacant, crest jewel property known as Dr. Helligs Bungalow 10,400 sq.
for the road widening parking of companymercial vehicle free of charges.
