Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Shyam Lal Verma - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
jaipur development authority act, 1982 - cancellation of bid and forfeiture of deposit--acceptence of bid neither published nor intimation given to plaintiff-held, plaintiff was not at fault in not depositing balance amount.;even if the reports that the plaintiff was not found at the given address were correct, it cannot be said that any fault could be attributed to the plaintiff in view of the specific directions that the letter should be published in the news paper but it was not published and no intimation was sent. the learned trial court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not given an intimation in regard to the acceptance of the bid and, as such, the plaintiff was not at fault.;(b) jaipur development authority act, 1982 - section 83--tribunal--jurisdiction of--contractual disputes between jda and private parties--held, tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide.;the jurisdiction of the tribunal is only for the purposes of examining the validity of the orders passed for the purposes of the act when an appeal is filed by an aggrieved party or for the purpose, of deciding the dispute referred to it by the jda. no provision has been brought to my notice which empowers the tribunal to decide contractual disputes between the jda and private parties and, therefore, i am of the view that the tribunal had no jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide the appeal against the order cancelling the bid and forfeiting the 1/4th amount already deposited by the plaintiff and as such it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in the present case.;appeal dismissed with costs. - - on 31.3.1983, the plaintiff received from the defendant letter dated 26.3.1983 stating that since the plaintiff had failed to deposit the 3/4th amount the bid had been cancelled and 1/4th bid amount had been forfeited. in the written statement the defendant-appellant pleaded that the information regarding acceptance of the bid was sent to the plaintiff on 28.10.1980 and thereafter by registered post/ad on 2.12.1980, but the plaintiff-respondent had failed to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount and that vide letter dated 26.3.1983 the defendant had informed the plaintiff that on his failure to deposit the remaining amount the bid had been cancelled and 1/4th amount deposited by him and been forfeited. the record, therefore, clearly shows that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had been sending letters to the defendant no intimation was received and probably for the reasons that the file in question remained with the clerk, who had to issue the notice for publication and the file remained unattended till 21.2.1983 and was called on receipt of the letter ex. 13 clearly shows that the reports regarding nonservice of letters by registered post and through cycle rider were not considered sufficient and, as such, directions were issued for publication of the notice in the news paper directing the plaintiff to deposit 3/4th amount within 10 days thereof.n.c. kochhar, j.1. this appeal under section 96 of the code of civil procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.5.1992 passed by the learned additional district judge no. 2, jaipur city, jaipur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. the case of the plaintiff-respondent in the suit filed on 12.5.1986 was as under:2. on 25.9.1980, the urban improvement trust (uit), the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellant jaipur development authority (jda), had offered to sell by auction shop plot no. c-30, lal kothi shopping centre scheme, jaipur. according to the terms of the auction, the highest bidder was to pay 25% of the bid amount at the spot and the remaining amount was to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the letter confirming the acceptance of the bid by the appropriate authority. the plaintiff-respondent was the highest bidder at the rate of rs. 975/- per-square meter and he deposited rs. 13,173/- as l/4th amount of the bid against receipt. no information regarding confirmation of the acceptance of the bid was sent to the plaintiff-respondent, who wrote letters to the uit dated 23.1.1981, 28.11.1981, 17.2.1982 and 26.5.1982, but no reply to the said letters was received, by the plaintiff. the defendant- appellant-jaipur development authority was constituted on 11.10.1982 and the plaintiff-respondent sent letters dated 8.12.1982 and 3.1.1983 to the defendant-appellant, but since no reply was received from the defendant-appellant the plaintiffs son om prakash verma met shri ts rajpurohit, the secretary of the defendant-appellant on 14.2.1983 and also delivered to him the letter of the said date in which new address of the plaintiff-respondent had also been mentioned, but shri rajpurohit told him that the file was not traceable and asked the plaintiffs son to make enquiry after 8-10 days and, thereupon, on 23.2.1983, the plaintiffs son against went and delivered another letter to the secretary, who told him that the information regarding acceptance of the bid would be received by the plaintiff within 5-7 days thereof. on 31.3.1983, the plaintiff received from the defendant letter dated 26.3.1983 stating that since the plaintiff had failed to deposit the 3/4th amount the bid had been cancelled and 1/4th bid amount had been forfeited. the plaintiff pleaded that no information had been over received by him from the defendant-appellant in spite of the plaintiff making enquiries about the confirmation of the bid and that he had always been ready and willing to deposit the remaining 3/4 amount and to perform his part of the contract. he, therefore, prayed that a decree for specific performance for sale of the property in dispute be passed in his favour and against the defendant.3. the suit was contested by the defendant-appellant. in the written statement the defendant-appellant pleaded that the information regarding acceptance of the bid was sent to the plaintiff on 28.10.1980 and thereafter by registered post/ad on 2.12.1980, but the plaintiff-respondent had failed to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount and that vide letter dated 26.3.1983 the defendant had informed the plaintiff that on his failure to deposit the remaining amount the bid had been cancelled and 1/4th amount deposited by him and been forfeited. the suit was also contested on the ground that no contract had come into existence between the parties and that the suit was barred in view of section 99 of the jaipur development authority act. in was also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiff had also filed a suit for injunction against the defendant and had not sought the relief in question in the said suit and, as such, the suit was barred under order 2 rule 2 of the code of civil procedure (the code).4. after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties besides hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court held that the suit was within time and that it was not barred either in view of section 99 of the jaipur development authority act or by order 2 rule 2 of the code and that the plaintiff had not received any information from the defendant in regard to the acceptance of the bid and that cancellation of the bid and forfeiture of the amount deposited by the plaintiff was illegal and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief prayed for. consequently, vide the impugned judgment dated 30.5.1992 the plaintiffs suit was decreed with costs. hence this appeal by the defendant-appellant.5. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.6. the first contention raised by shri m.k. sadarangani, the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, is that the defendant-appellant had sent letter dated 2.12.1980 (ex.a-1/1) by registered post informing the plaintiff that his highest bid has been accepted by the appropriate authority and had called upon him to deposit the balance 3/4 amount within 30 days of the issue of the said letter but the letter sent by registered post had been received back with the report that the plaintiff was not found at the given address and, thereupon, copy of the letter was sent through the cycle rider, who had also reported that the plaintiff-respondent was not available at the address in question and that the plaintiff not having deposited the amount in question, the defendant-appellant lightly decided to cancel the bid and to forfeit the 1/4th amount already deposited by the plaintiff and, as such, the learned trial court erred in passing the impugned decree against the defendant-appellant. the contention of shri g.c. garg, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, is that the plaintiff had been residing at the address in question till january 1983 and neither any registered letter was presented to him nor did any cycle rider came to his house at the given address and in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had sent letters dated 23.1.1981, 28.11.1981, 17.2.1982, 26.5.1982 (ex.3 to 6 respectively), 14.2.1983 and 23.2.1983 (ex.11 and ex.12 respectively), no intimation was sent about the acceptance of the bid by the appropriate authority and, as such, the defendant-appellant had no right to cancel the bid and/or to foifeit the 1/4th amount already deposited by the plaintiff specially when on receipt of the reports regarding non-service of the registered letter and the one sent through cycle rider the decision was taken to send the intimation by publication in the news-paper, but, instead of acting on the said decision, the letter dated 26.3.1983 cancelling the bid and forfeiting the amount was sent without making reference to ex. 11 and 12. it is contended that in these circumstances the learned trial court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.7. in support of their respective cases, the plaintiff examined his son and attorney om prakash verma as pw-1 and the defendant-appellant examined shri suresh chand sharma, udc in its office as dw-1.8. in his statement on oath om prakash verma (pw-1) deposed that the plaintiff had been residing at the earlier address till january, 1983 and that the plaintiff had sent to the defendant letters ex.3 to 6 under certificates of posting ex.7 to 10 and that on 14.2.1983 he had personally met shri ts rajpurohit in the office of the defendant-appellant and had delivered to him letter (ex.11) and that since no information had been received, he again went to the office of the defendant on 23.2.1983 and had delivered a letter (ex.12) also intimating the change of the plaintiffs address. he has further deposed that no information had been received from the defendant-appellant about the acceptance of the bid by the approprlate authority. he has also deposed that no publication was made in the news paper in accordance with the decision taken in ex.13. statement of this witness remained unrebutted and not a word was deposed by dw-1 about non-receipt of the letters abovesaid from the plaintiff. neither the postal receipt under which letter dated 2.12.1982 (ex.a-1/1) was sent had been proved on record nor was the post- man produced by the defendant in the witness box to-say that he had gone to the given address but had not found the plaintiff. similarly, no cycle rider, who is stated to have gone and have reported that he did not find the plaintiff at the given address, has been examined. the statement of pw-1 that the plaintiff resided at the given address till january, 1983 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. moreover, ex.13 is the photo stat copy of the noting made in the file in this connection and this document shows that letter dated 2.12.1980 was issued and was sent by registered post/ad but had been received back with the report that the plaintiff could not be found at the given address and, thereupon, vide order dated 24.12.1980 it was directed that the letter should be sent to the plaintiff through the cycle rider. note dated 31.12.1980 records that the letter was sent through devi singh, cycle rider and note dated 6.1.1981 records that the cycle rider had reported that the plaintiff could not be found at the given address. when this note was put up before the appropriate authority, it was directed that the intimation about acceptance of the bid should be sent to the plaintiff by publiction in a daily news paper and the plaintiff be called upon to pay the remaining 3/4th amount within 10 days thereof. thereafter, approved draft was put up for publication but no publication was made by the official concerned and the file was received back in the section only on 21.2.1983 and, thereafter, not dated 10.3.1983 was put up recording the fact that the letters sent by registered post as also through cycle rider had been received back with the reports that the plaintiff was not available at the given address and that thereafter the file was sent to shri bhargava for publication but no publication of the notice in the news paper had been made and the file was received back from shri bhargava on 21.2.1983 and further that the plaintiff, who had not received the letter, wanted to deposit the amount which was to the deposited within 30 days and the matter was put up for directions and decision was taken on 21.3.1983 to cancel the bid and to forfeit the 1/4th amount already deposited. the record, therefore, clearly shows that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had been sending letters to the defendant no intimation was received and probably for the reasons that the file in question remained with the clerk, who had to issue the notice for publication and the file remained unattended till 21.2.1983 and was called on receipt of the letter ex.11 from the plaintiff. ex.13 clearly shows that the reports regarding nonservice of letters by registered post and through cycle rider were not considered sufficient and, as such, directions were issued for publication of the notice in the news paper directing the plaintiff to deposit 3/4th amount within 10 days thereof. if the abovesaid order was not complied with and the file remained unattended in the office of the defendant no fault can be attributed to the plaintiff. in these circumstances, even if the reports that the plaintiff was not found at the given address were correct, it cannot be said that any fault could be attributed to the plaintiff in view of the specific directions that the letter should be published in the news paper but it was not published and no intimation was sent. the learned trial court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not given an intimation in regard to the acceptance of the bid and, as such, the plaintiff was hot at fault. this contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted and is rejected.9. the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is that if the plaintiff was aggrieved by the order cancelling the bid and forfeiting the 1/4th amount deposited by him he could have filed an appeal under sub-section (8) of section 83 of the jaipur development authority act, 1982 (the jda act) and that the suit was barred in view of section 99 of the said act and as such the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and grant the relief to the plaintiff.10. sub-section (1) of section 83 empowers the state government to constitute a tribunal for the purposes of the jda act and sub-section (7) thereof provides that except as otherwise provided, any dispute arising out of any provision of the act may be referred to the tribunal by the authority and the decision of the tribunal shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto and sub-section (8) thereof provides that except as otherwise provided, any person aggrieved by an order of the authority may file an appeal in the tribunal within 30 days of the communication of the order to him and that the decision of the tribunal in appeal shall be final and binding on all the parties thereto. various decisions have to be taken by the jda for the purposes of the act and for those purposes certain orders have to be passed and directions have to be issued. sub-section (1) of section 83 makes it clear that the tribunal has to be constituted for the purposes of the act and any dispute can be referred by the jda to the tribunal and any person aggrieved by any order passed by the authority can file an appeal before the tribunal. thus, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is only for the purposes of examining the validity of the orders passed for the purposes of the act when an appeal is filed by an aggrieved party or for the purpose of deciding the dispute referred to it by the jda. no provision has been brought to my notice which empowers the tribunal to decide contractual disputes between the jda and private parties and, therefore, i am of the view that the tribunal had no jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide the appeal against the order cancelling the bid and forfeiting the 114th amount already deposited by the plaintiff and as such it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in the present case. this contention of the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is, therefore, also without force and i have no hesitation in rejecting the same.11. no other point has been raised before me.12. for the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.