Supreme Court of India
SURESH CHANDRA versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS. on 3 December 2018
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 985
SURESH CHANDRA
v.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11760 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Auction:
Re-auction – Propriety of – First auction of plot byrespondent-Parishad – Appellant though the highest bidder, wasnot given the land by the Parishad and decision taken to re-auction– Decision for re-auction challenged in writ petition by the appellant– Re-auction was allowed by High Court subject to outcome of thewrit petition – In second auction respondent No.5 was allotted theland and sale-deed executed in his favour – Writ Petition of appellantwas dismissed – Appeal to Supreme Court – Notice issued limited tothe question of re-auction (third auction) of the land in question –Respondent-Parishad had no objection to the re-auction – Held: Inorder to do complete justice between the parties, and to balancethe equities, fresh auction can be ordered – Parishad is directed tore-auction the land by giving it wide publicity and after fixing thereserve price on consulting the experts – Sale-deed executed infavour of respondent No.5 has become void.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to do complete justice between theparties in relation to subject matter of the proceedings in questionand to balance the equities and further having regard to all thefacts and circumstances of the case, the fresh auction of the landin question can be ordered. [Para 17][989-B-C]
2. The 2[nd] re-auction proceedings conducted by theParishad were made subject to final outcome of the writ petitionby order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the High Court in theappellant’s writ petition and, therefore, even if Parishad hadproceeded to finalize the sale of the land in question in favour ofrespondent No.5, it did not affect any of the rights of the appellant
985
A
B
C
DE
F
G
H
Awhile prosecuting the writ petition. It was more so becauserespondent No.5 was also aware of the order dated 30.07.2012,he being part to the writ petition. [Para 18][989-C-E]
3. The Parishad did not give adequate publicity for sale ofthe land in question while conducting the two auctions keepingBin view, the value and the potential of the land, the Parishad shouldhave given adequate publicity in the leading national English,Hindi newspapers having circulation all over the country includingany other prescribed mode of publication with a sole object toattract participation of more and more persons in the auctionproceedings. [Paras 19 and 20][989-E-F]
C
4. The Parishad committed an error in fixing reserve priceof the land at a very less amount. The Parishad should have seenthat the land has a tremendous potential in commercial marketas is clear from the fact that both the bidders had volunteered topay much higher price as against their original bid amount.D[Para 21][989-F-H]
5. Since this Court has directed re-auctioning of the land,the sale deed has now become void. Respondent No.5 is,therefore, entitled to claim refund of entire stamp duty amountpaid by him on the sale deed for its execution/registration. TheEappellant and respondent No. 5 will be free to participate in theauction proceedings as a fresh bidder along with others.[Paras 27 and 28][990-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11760of 2018.FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No. 6198of 2012.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Sushil Kumar Dubey, Ms. NoorRampal, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Appellant.G
S. S. Kulshrestha, Sr. Adv., Vishwajit Singh, Ms. Srishti Khanna,Ajeet Pandey, Danish Zubar Khan, Abhay Kumar, Manish Khandelwal,Saurabh Misra, Himanshu Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated29.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, LucknowBench in Writ Petition No. 6198(M/B) of 2012 whereby the DivisionBench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellantherein.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, whichlies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts inbrief hereinbelow.
4. While issuing notice of this special leave to appeal on 06.03.2018,this Court passed the following order:
“Application for exemption from filing official translationis allowed.
Issue notice on the limited question as to why theproperty in question admeasuring 639 sq.metres land whichwas auctioned by Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishadfor which market price as of today is quite high, be not putto auction sale again, returnable on 14[th] March, 2018.
Status quo as of today in respect of the property inquestion shall be maintained.
Petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by wayof dasti service within a week.”
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents have filed theirresponse/counter affidavits.
6. In short, the dispute relates to a plot of land bearing plot No.4B/CP-03 (Sector 4B) situated at Sikandara Yojna, Agra having totalarea measuring 639.75 Sq. meter owned by U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad-respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the Parishad”).
7. On 12.08.2010, the Parishad in daily Hindi News Papers “DainikJagaran” and “Amar Ujala” issued an advertisement inviting applicationsfrom interested parties for allotment of the aforementioned land. Thereserved rate of the plot was fixed at Rs.17,248/- per sq. mt. The partieswere to deposit a token money of Rs.11,03,500/-.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A8. It is the case of the appellant that he was one of the bidders,who quoted the rate of the plot at Rs.18050/- per sq. meter which wasthe highest. The Parishad, however, was of the view that the offersreceived did not represent the real market price and, therefore, it decidedto re-auction the same.B9. The Parishad, therefore, issued a fresh advertisement for B9. The Parishad, therefore, issued a fresh advertisement forallotment of land. The appellant felt aggrieved with the Parishad’sdecision to re-auction the land in question and issuance of freshadvertisement and filed Writ Petition No.6198/2012 in the High Court atAllahabad. The High Court, by interim order dated 30.07.2012, directedthat re-auction may be held but it will be subject to the final outcome ofCthe writ petition.
10. In re-auction, respondent No. 5 submitted his bid forRs.28,000/- per Sq. Meter as against the reserve price of Rs.27,104/-fixed by the Parishad. The appellant in order to show his bona fideinterest offered to purchase the land for Rs.40,000/- per Sq. Meter andDlater modified his offer at Rs.45,000/- per Sq. Meter in the Court. Theappellant also deposited a sum of Rs.1.15 crores out of the total amountof Rs.2.87 crores.
11. The High Court, by impugned order, dismissed the appellant’swrit petition essentially on the ground that since he was not the bidder inEthe re-auction proceedings, he cannot be heard in the matter and Secondly;since during the pendency of the writ petition, the Parishad had executedthe sale deed of the land in favour of respondent No.5 and hence nothingnow survives in the matter.
12. The appellant(writ petitioner) felt aggrieved and filed this appealFby way of special leave in this Court. As mentioned above, notice wasissued to examine only one limited issue in relation to re-auction of theland.
13. Heard Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned senior counsel for theappellant and Mr. S.S. Kulshrestha, learned senior counsel, Mr. VishwajitGSingh and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal asmentioned hereinbelow.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.1- Parishad at the outsetHsubmitted that the Parishad has no objection if the re-auction of the plot of the land in question is done because in re-auction proceedings, theParishad is bound to get more sale price as against the price quoted bythe bidders in the earlier two auctions.
16. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5, however, defendedthe impugned order and contended that since the sale has already beenconcluded in his favour and sale deed has also been executed, the appealdeserves dismissal.
17. We are of the considered opinion that in order to do completejustice between the parties in relation to subject matter of the proceedingsin question and to balance the equities and further having regard to allthe facts and circumstances of the case, the fresh auction of the land inquestion can be ordered. It is also necessary for the following reasons.
18. First, the 2[nd] re-auction proceedings conducted by the Parishadwere made subject to final outcome of the writ petition by order dated30.07.2012 passed by the High Court in the appellant’s writ petition and,therefore, even if Parishad had proceeded to finalize the sale of the landin question in favour of respondent No.5, it did not affect any of therights of the appellant while prosecuting the writ petition. It was more sobecause the respondent No.5 was also aware of the order dated30.07.2012, he being part to the writ petition.
19. Second, the Parishad did not give adequate publicity for saleof the land in question while conducting two auctions because we findthat only two bidders could participate in the auctions.
20. In our view, the Parishad, keeping in view, the value and thepotential of the land, should have given adequate publicity in the leadingnational English, Hindi newspapers having circulation all over the countryincluding any other prescribed mode of publication with a sole object toattract participation of more and more persons in the auction proceedings.
21. Third, the Parishad committed an error in fixing reserve priceof the land at a very less amount. The Parishad should have seen thatthe land has a tremendous potential in commercial market as is clearfrom the fact that both the bidders had volunteered to pay much higherprice as against their original bid amount.
22. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, we are of the viewthat the land in question deserves to be re-auctioned afresh.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A23. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The Parishad isdirected to re-auction the land in question by giving wide publicity invarious leading national newspapers having circulation all over India inbold letters including giving publicity in local daily newspapers also in theStates with a view to enable more and more persons to participate in theBauction for allotment of the said land.
24. The Parishad is also directed to get the reserve price fixedafter consulting experts in the subject.
25. The Parishad is also directed to provide adequate conditionsCso that the auction process becomes transparent and at the same timethe bidders are able to submit their bids properly.
26. The Parishad is also directed to refund the entire money tothe appellant and the respondent No. 5, which they had deposited forpurchase of the land in question in auctions with interest payable at theDrate of 6% p.a..
27. The State will issue a necessary certificate in favour ofrespondent No.5 to enable him to claim refund of stamp duty amountfrom the State which he has paid on the sale deed executed by theParishad in his favour in relation to the land in question. Since this CourtEhas directed re-auctioning of the land, the sale deed has now becomevoid. Respondent No.5 is, therefore, entitled to claim refund of entirestamp duty amount paid by him on the sale deed for its execution/registration.
28. The appellant and respondent No. 5 will be free to participatein the auction proceedings as a fresh bidder along with others. However,Fthey will not be entitled to claim any kind of benefit in re-auctionproceedings on the ground that they had earlier participated in the auctionproceedings.
29. The Parishad would ensure that the auction proceedings areconducted in fair and transparent manner and fetch maximum price ofGthe land.
30. Let the fresh auction proceedings be completed within 6months from the date of this order.
HKalpana K. Tripathy