JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR versus CHILDREN'S ACADEMY, JAIPUR AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 03-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, .JAIPUR 
v. 
CH.ILDREN'S ACADEMY, JAIPUR AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .I.I.] 
Rajasthan Urba11 Improvement Tmst (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 
1974: 
R.17-Urban Lan~Allotment to Educational Instillltions at conces-
sional rates-Offer of allotment made to educational institutio11 on presC1ibed 
condition~on-compliance 011 the part of Institution-01igi11al offer can-
celled and a fresh offer made-Institution not challenging the cancellation but 
claiming allotment with concession on original reseived price of first 
offe!'-f!eld, institutio11 not entitled to allotme11t with concession at the rate 
D of 01igi11a/ offer which had been cancelled a11d was no longer subsisti11g. 
The respondents, an educational institution,"applied for and was, by 
order dated 12.8.1988, a allotted 15,000 sq. yard of land. The appellant, 
Jaipur Development Authority informed the respondents that it had fixed 
E 
reserved price at Rs. 160 per s11. metre for Schools and asked the respon-
. dents to deposit the total amount of Rs. 20,31,820.90 The respondents 
deposited only one lakh rupees. Though the Respondents were informed 
that Government had granted permission for allotment of land at 25% of 
the reserved price to the institution, and they asked to deposit the amount 
within 30 days, the respondents did not deposit the amount and conse-
F 
quently the allotment order dated 12.8.1988 was cancelled. However, a 
fresh offer was made to the respondents on the conditions prescribed and 
they were asked to deposit the amount within 30 days of the receipt of the 
offer. The respondents did not deposit the amount and sent a letter to the 
appellant staling that since the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust 
G (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 envisaged tltat 50% of prevailing 
reserved price was to be paid, the demand was illegal. The respondents 
filed a Wl'it petition before the High Court, which directed the allotment 
on payment of 25% of the earlier price at the rate of Rs. 160 per sq. metre. 
Aggrieved, Jaipur Development Authority filed the appeal by special leave. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
770 
,,:· 
JAIPUR DEV. i\llTITORITY 1·. CJ LILDREN'S ACADEMY 
771 
HELD : LL The High Court erroneously directed the allotment on 
A 
paymmt of 25% of Rs. 1611 per sq. metre, which offer had already been 
cancelled and \\'as no longer subsisting. [773-F] 
1.2. In the first offer, the appellant had o!lered land at the rate of 
Rs. 160 per "I· metre as reserved price and the respondents had not 
complied with the same and the offer stood cancelled. The cancellation 
order was not challenged. The respondents did not pay the amount at 
reserved price and did not claim refund at 50% or 25%, as the case may 
be. They deposited only Rs. l lakh as against Rs. 21 lakhs. In 1990, when 
B 
a second offer was made even then also the respondents did not comply 
with the offer; instead they approached the Cou"rt for a direction to give 
C 
allotment to them at concessional rate of 25% of original value at Rs. 160 
per sq. metre. (773-B, E) 
1.3. The circular dated October 13, 1987 is only guideline for disposal 
of the lands for educational, religious, charitable or public institutions at 
concessional rate of 25o/ti as the reserved price, but the instructions \\-'ere 
to ensure uniformity in the allotment and charging the rates. [773-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10308 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.93 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.S.A No. 607 of 1991. 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and AK. Goel for the Appellant. 
C.L. Raj Kumar, P. Nara.">himhan and Arun~sll\var (iupta for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated Novem-
ber Hl, 1993 of the Division Bench of the High Court passed in D.B. Sp!. 
Appeal No. 607 of 1991. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Th.e facts are not in dispute. The first respondent is an educational 
institution which made a request to the appellant for allotment of 15,0110 H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
sq. yards of land in Malviya Nagar Scheme. By proceedings dated August 
12, 1988, the appellant had informed the respondents that it had fixed the 
reserved price at Rs. 160 per sq. metre for schools. Clause 5 says that the 
lease money can be changed after 15 years but it will not exceed 25% of 
the reserved price. C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.