LexGANGA RETREAT AND TOWERS LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A GANGA RETREAT AND TOWERS LTD. AND ANR. B v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. DECEMBER 19, 2003 [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976-Sections 6(1) read with section 15 and sections 20 and 38-Contract Act, 1872-Sections 18, 19, 21, 22 and 56-Public auction-Property described as ji-ee hold, C ceiling free and vacant with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as 2.00-Company declared successful bidder, however payment delayed as per schedule- Payment along with interest on delayed payment and also registration charges and stamp duty paid-Execution of sale deed and possession delivered to Company-Application for sanction of building plans for construction-Meanwhile, FAR reduced to 1. 75 owing to change- in D Bye laws-Building plans approved with FAR 1. 75-State issued notice to Company for holding land in excess of ceiling limits-Grant of exemption subject to condition that property would not be alienated without prior permission of the Government-Company fully knowing that FAR ap- proved as 1. 75 and property not ceiling free commencing construction E activities and also re-submitting plans for approval of FAR as 2. 00-Writ Petition seeking declaratory reliefs that there was frustration or impossi- bility of performance of contract; and that FAR 1. 75 not applicable-Also claimed refund of registration charges, stamp duty and cost of construction incurred with interest--On appeal Held: Company having known about the F reduction of FAR from 2. 00 to 1. 7 5 and that the land was not ceiling free affirmed the contract by getting their plans approved with FAR 1. 75 and started construction activities as such they cannot annul and avoid a concluded contract and flX liability on the Government-There was no frustration or impossibility of performance of contract-When the Com- G pany applied for approval of building plans, law in force at that time would apply--Doctrine of promissory estoppel is not available when any action is desired to be taken in contravention of the provisions of law-Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982-Section 90-Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1954-Section 298-Administrative Law. H Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 and 136-Petition 1134 GANGA RETREAT AND TOWERS LTD. v. STATE 1135 "· involving disputed questions of fact in relation to completed contract of A sale of land-Maintainability of-Held: Such petitions cannot be adequately adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction-Filing of suit would be efficacious remedy-However, Supreme Court decided the dispute on merits on account of lapse of time. Respondent-State carried out public auction of a property de- scribing it as free-hold, ceiling free, vacant property with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as 2.00 provided by 1989 Bye-laws. Appellant-Company was declared successful bidder. Appellants delayed the payment as per B the schedule and later made the payment along with interest for delayed payment and also paid registration charges and stamp duty. C Thereafter, sale deed was executed and it was repeated that FAR would be 2.00. Appellants were then delivered possession. Thereafter, appel- lants applied for sanction of plans for constructing the property as per FAR 2.00 and deposited under protest the map approval charges demanded. Meanwhile, Municipal Corporation revised its bye~laws D and by 1996 Regulation FAR was reduced to 1.75. Municipal Corpo- ration approved the plans as per FAR 1.75 and immediately appellants commenced construction activities with the belief that the remaining FAR would be approved. Competent Authority issued· notice to the appellants under section 38 of Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, E 1976 alleging that the appellants were holding land in excess of the ceiling limits and had not filed the return. Appellants submitted that as the property had been sold ceiling free there was no need tt; file return and as such applied for exemption. Appellant was granted exemption from ceiling subject to the conditions that para-meters of F Municipal Corporation regarding construction would be applicable and that the property would not be alienated without prior permission of the State Government. Appellants re-submitted the plans for approval of FAR as 2.00 or to refund the proportionate amount consequent upon the reduction in FAR. Aggrieved appellants then filed writ petition seeking reliefs that declaration be passed to the effect that the cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.