M/s Neemrana Associates v. Regional Manager RIICO Ltd. and Ors

Judgment

1. M/s. Neemrana Associates Through Dr. Subhash Yadav, Gowsami Tractors, Singhana Road, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana ----Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Ram Das S/o Shri Kundanlal Sharma, Kamaniya, Teh. Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana

3. Ashok Mudgal S/o Shri Ghanshyam, Neemrana, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

4. Smt. Santosh Yadav W/o Shri Balwan Singh, Chavandi, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

5. Smt. Santosh W/o Shri Ram Kishan, Kamaniya, Teh. Narnaul, Distt. Mahendragarh Haryana

6. Kailash Chand S/o Shri Jairam, Village Folaadpur, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

7. Shubhram S/o Shri Ramjilal, Karoda, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

8. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Badri Prasad, Behind Police Station, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

9. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Sheolal, Behind Police Station, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

10. Balwan Singh Yadav S/o Shri Hiralal, Chawadi, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

11. Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Namalum, Baatsani, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

12. Chhitar Mal S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, Dhundaria, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar

Udai Singh Tomar S/o Shri Prabhu Singh, B-12, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-5, New Delhi

14. Rajpal Singh S/o Shri Sheo Narayan, B-12, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sector-5, New Delhi [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (2 of 19) [CSA-104/2012]

15. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Jasram Jat, Folaadpur, Teh. Behror, Distt. Alwar ----Proforma Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kr. Bhandari, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Verma, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 24 /07/2025 REPORTABLE This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant-RIICO (for short 'the RIICO') against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Behror, District-Alwar, (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil appeal No. 48/2009 (24/2004), whereby the first appellate Court while partly allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Behror, Alwar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 19/2001 titled as "M/s Neemrana Associates Vs. Regional Manager RIICO Ltd. and Ors.", by which the trial Court dismissed the suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale and lease deed dated

13.02.2002 and held the plaintiff entitled to get land equivalent to the disputed land in Industrial Area Neemrana from defendant at the same rate (i.e. Rs. 310 per sq. mtr.). Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and respondent Nos. 2 to 15 mentioning therein that an auction notice was published in [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (3 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Dainik Bhaskar, Alwar Edition and commercial land admeasuring 15,150 square meter in Industrial Area, Neemrana was put to an auction on 12.12.2000 at a reserve price of Rs. 400 per square meter, for which a proposal @ Rs. 300 per square meter was received. It was clarified that if any person interested in giving the higher than proposed amount, he could deposit 2% of the bidding amount as earnest money with Regional Manager Office RIICO Ltd. Shahjahanpur by 05.01.2001. If no proposal is received, then RIICO administration would take decision on the proposals so received by the said date. As per the auction notice, the plaintiff submitted a proposal in the office of RIICO to purchase the said commercial land @ Rs. 310/- per square meter on 05.01.2001 and deposited 2% of the bid amount (i.e. Rs. 1,26,000/-) in cash towards earnest money. It was mentioned that no proposal more than the plaintiff's bidding amount was received by RIICO. It was also mentioned that thereafter RIICO breached the terms of the auction and informed the plaintiff that the said commercial land would not be given to him and same would be sub-divided and auctioned again. The plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that his proposal was final proposal and plaintiff had already deposited 2% of the bidding amount as earnest money. So, RIICO was estopped by the contract. RIICO vide its letter dated 27.01.2001, breach the terms and conditions of the notification and bent upon to auction the commercial land. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed and the disputed land may not be sub-divided or re-auctioned. During the pendency, the said plot was sub-divided and re- auctioned. [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (4 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Plaintiff sought the amendment in the plaint. The said amendment was allowed by the trial Court and at para 9(1) it was mentioned that the sub-division of the land be rejected and sale deed executed by RIICO in favour of other persons be cancelled and declared as void ab initio. Despite giving proper opportunities, RIICO failed to file its written statement. So, the trial Court closed the written statement of the RIICO. Defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14 & 15 filed their written statements and mentioned that proposal of the plaintiff was not the highest as on 05.01.2001. M/s Prem Enterprises submitted a proposal of Rs. 315/- per square meter and deposited Rs.1,26,000/- as earnest money. It was also mentioned that M/s Mishty Medows Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur, had also given proposal @ Rs. 338/- per square meter on 12.01.2001. Plaintiff had no right or title over the land as his proposal was less than the other bidders. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: (1) Whether pursuant to the notification dated 20.12.2000 issued by defendant No.1 in Dainik Bhaskar Alwar Edition, the plaintiff deposited the earnest money in the office of defendant No.1 for the purpose of purchasing the commercial land, as mentioned in para No.1 of the suit? (2) Whether as per the notification, no other proposal was received by defendant No.1 after 05.01.2001,? [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (5 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] (3) Whether as per the notification, on deposition of the earnest money by the plaintiff with the defendant No.1, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 in accordance with the rules for purchasing the disputed commercial land? (4) Whether as per the notification dated 20.12.2000, on deposition of the earnest money by the plaintiff with the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 is bound to hand over the possession of the commercial land admeasuring 15,150 sq.metre to the plaintiff on deposition of the balance amount by him as per law? (5) Whether the defendant No.1 is unlawfully adamant to sub-divide the land in question and re-auction the same and for this reason, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of permanent injunction against defendant No.1? (6) Whether the defendant No.1 has unlawfully sub-divided the land in question as mentioned in para No.9(1) of the plaint and sold the same by auction to defendant Nos.2 to 15 and for this reason the sale and auction as also the registered sale deed and lease deed executed in their favour are illegal, and liable to be set aside? (7) Whether on account of payment of deficit court fees, suit is liable to be dismissed? (8) Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff as against defendant Nos. 3, 6, 13, 14 and 15? To prove its case the plaintiff got examined PW-1-Subhash Chand Yadav and PW-2-Jitendra S/o Phool Singh Yadav and to [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (6 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] prove their case, defendants got examined Mukesh Saksena as DW-1. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

08.04.2004 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court. The plaintiff amended the appeal memo and additional relief to allot other land situated in same vicinity was sought and same amendment was allowed by the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2004 passed by the trial Court and held the plaintiff entitled to get land equivalent to the disputed land from defendant in the Industrial Area, Neemrana at the same rate (i.e. Rs. 310 per sq. mtr.). Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011 passed by the first appellate Court, the RIICO preferred the second appeal before this Court and this Court vide order dated

06.05.2013 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of Law:- (i) Whether by reason of mere fact the notice inviting tender contained a stipulation that if no bid for more than Rs.300/- per sqr. mtr. is received, offers already received would be considered, would amount to acceptance of bid of the plaintiff only because he gave higher offer of Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. and whether on that basis, contract between the parties can be taken to have been concluded? [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (7 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] (ii) Whether the learned first appellate court was justified in directing allotment of Rs.15,150 sqr. mtr. commercial land in Industrial Area, Neemrana to the plaintiff-respondent only @ Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. despite there being no prayer made in the plaint by the plaintiff? (iii) Whether the learned first appellate court could have passed the impugned decree in the absence of suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff? (iv) Whether the offer of the plaintiff to purchase the land in dispute @ Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. would not stand declined if the head office of the appellant rejected the same? (v) What is the effect of the interim order of the trial court dated 13.03.2001 on the sale of part of the land to a 3rd party by RIICO vide allotment letter dated 02.03.2001? * Substantial question of law Nos. 1 & 4-: These are interrelated to each other, so both are being decided simultaneously. (i) Whether by reason of mere fact the notice inviting tender contained a stipulation that if no bid for more than Rs.300/- per sqr. mtr. is received, offers already received would be considered, would amount to acceptance of bid of the plaintiff only because he gave higher offer of Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. and whether on that basis, contract between the parties can be taken to have been concluded? [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (8 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] (iv) Whether the offer of the plaintiff to purchase the land in dispute @ Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. would not stand declined if the head office of the appellant rejected the same? Learned senior counsel for the RIICO submits that the trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff clearly mentioned that Special Auction Notice was only proposal but the first appellate Court had committed an error in giving the finding that on account of giving proposal by the plaintiff, contract was concluded. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO further submits that a perusal of the auction notice shows that it was a Special Auction Notice because reserve price of the auction was Rs. 400/- per square meter and proposal was received for Rs. 300/- square meter. So, RIICO sub-divided the land and sought proposal from other persons for giving the higher bid and it was also stated that RIICO Management had to take the final decision on the proposals so received by them. So, price quoted by a plaintiff-bidder in the auction was mere a proposal only. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that plaintiff in his evidence admitted the fact that he had given an offer of Rs. 310/- per square meter. So, it was only a proposal but the first appellate Court wrongly mentioned that it was a concluded contract on account of offer given by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that as per Rule 27 of RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979, the RIICO has power to withdraw any land/plot from allotment and revoke any proposal to dispose of the land/plot or decline to make an [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (9 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] allotment altogether, without assigning any reason. Therefore, this unfettered power vests in the RIICO. So, the first appellate Court had committed an error in considering the proposal of the RIICO as a concluded contract. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that offer made by the plaintiff was rejected vide letter dated 27.01.2001 which was exhibited in the evidence of the RIICO as Ex.D-1 and earnest money of Rs. 1,26,000/- deposited by the plaintiff was returned to him vide letter dated 01.02.2001 and said letter was exhibited as Ex.D-2. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that offer of the M/s Prem Enterprises was also rejected and earnest money was also returned to them. Similarly, the bid of Indra Kumar was also rejected. So, it can't be said that RIICO acted arbitrarily. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that proposal of the plaintiff was sent to the higher authorities and higher authorities did not consider it fit for acceptance. Therefore, in order to get better option to fetch more money, RIICO decided to sub-divide the disputed commercial land and re-auctioned again. Hence, the auction can't be said arbitrarily on the part of the RIICO. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO also submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that contract could not be concluded in the absence of acceptance of the bid. In the present case, RIICO had not accepted the bid of the plaintiff. Even as per the Rule 27 of the RIICO Disposal of land Rules, 1979, the RIICO has power to revoke any proposal to dispose of the plot/land for allotment. So, finding with regard to concluded [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (10 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] contract recorded by the first appellate Court suffers from illegality. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. Vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 4 SCC

2. U P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma reported in (2013) 5 SCC 182.

3. Rajasthan Housing Board & Anr. Vs. G.S. Investments & Anr. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 477.

4. The State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Harinarayan Jaiswal & Ors. reported in (1972) 2 SCC 36.

5. Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) & Anr. Vs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust & Anr. reported in AIR 2025 SC 322. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO and submits that Special Auction Notice was not merely a proposal. It was an acceptance of the RIICO that if someone quotes price more than Rs. 300/- square meter, then it would be considered accordingly because in auction, RIICO put the reserve price @ Rs. 400/- per square meter but proposal was received at Rs. 300/- per square meter. In order to fetch more money, Special Auction Notice was published in the newspaper. On compliance of terms of the notice, plaintiff gave consent to buy the disputed land @ Rs.310/- per square meter. So, there was no option available with RIICO to reject the proposal of the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (11 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that DW-1 Mukesh Saksena in his cross-examination admitted that as per the circular issued by RIICO on 20.11.1997 and 27.12.2000 reserve price was Rs. 250/- for the plots which are more than 10,000 square meters and in case offer received is below reserve price then matter is to be referred to Head Office for approval. In the present case, offer of the plaintiff was Rs. 310/- per square meter which was more than the reserve price, so there was no need to refer the matter for approval to the Head Office. By way of Special Auction Notice, RIICO wanted to sale the disputed land at the rate more than Rs. 300/- per square meter. So, the first appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that proposal of the plaintiff was a concluded contract. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that in present case working style of the RIICO Officials was discriminatory between the similar situated parties. They applied two yardsticks. The offer of I.K. Associates was Rs.450/- per square meter for which RIICO authorities had fixed the auction price at Rs. 1050/- per square meter. Bid of the I.K. Associates was much below than the reserve auction price but RIICO had accepted the bid of I.K. Associates without approval of the Head Office and on the same day RIICO issued allotment letter. Although, RIICO authorities had power under the Rule 27 of RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 to revoke or withdraw any proposal to dispose of land/plot, but said power can't be used discriminatory with person to person. They are supposed to maintain parity. So, the RIICO failed to prove the substantial question of law. [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (12 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Rochees Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JDA reported in AIR 2002 Rajasthan 316.

2. Warlaw Vs. Harision reported in (1959) 1 E. & E. 309 Ex.H.

3. Johnston Vs. Boys reported in (1898) 2Ch.73.

4. Naina Pillai Vs. State of Kerala reported in 1957 Ker L.T.

1000. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. dk;kZy; {ks=h; izcU/kd] jhdks fy- 'kkgtkgiqj] ftyk vyoj fo'ks"k uhykeh lwpuk vk|kSfxd {ks= uhejk.kk esa O;kolkf;d Hkw[k.M 15]150 oxZehVj dh uhykeh fnukad 12-12-2000 dks vkjf{kr nj 400@& :- izfr oxZ ehVj ls j[kh xbZ FkhA fuxe iz'kklu dks ,d izLrko 300@& izfr oxZ ehVj ls izkIr gqvk gSA vxj vU; dksbZ O;fDr blls vf/kd izLrko nsus dk bPNqd gks rks og {ks=h; izcU/kd dk;kZy;] jhdks fy-] 'kkgtkgiqj dks fnukad 05-01-2001 rd dqy ewy jkf'k dh 2 izfr'kr /kjksgj jkf'k ds :i esa tek djkdj viuk izLrko ns ldrk gSA vU; dksbZ izLrko u vkus ij fuxe iz'kklu dks izkIr gq;s izLrko ij fu.kZ; ys fy;k tk;sxkA nwjHkk"k % 0194&35237 {ks=h; izcU/kd A perusal of the Special Auction Notice reveals that if someone gave offer more than Rs. 300/- per square meter then it would be accepted by the RIICO. In present case, plaintiff gave an offer of Rs. 310/- per square meter which was more than the rate [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (13 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] as prescribed in the circular issued by RIICO on 20.11.1997 and

27.12.2000. So, RIICO officials were bound to accept the same. A language of the Special Auction Notice also revealed that there was no option left with the RIICO for rejecting the offer of the plaintiff because in notice RIICO clearly mentioned that they got the bid of Rs. 300/- per square meter as against the notified bid of Rs. 400/- per square meter. If someone submits higher bid then they would act upon it accordingly. Rule 27 of the RIICO Disposal of Land Rules, 1979 reads as under:-

27. RESERVATION OR REVOCATION OF PLOT If in the opinion of the Corporation, any plot or area is required to be reserved or withdrawn from allotment, the Corporation may do so at any time or revoke any proposal to dispose of such a plot or area in such manner as decided by the Corporation. The Corporation reserves the right not to allot a plot of party’s choice or not to make allotment at all without assigning any reason. The land area to be allotted for a particular type of industry shall be decided by the Corporation, which shall be final. Although, above rules gives unfettered power to the authorities to revoke the allotment but said unfettered power can't be used arbitrarily. In the present case, when disputed land was again put for auction after sub-division, then I.K. Associates gave the acceptance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per square meter where bid price was Rs. 1050/- per square meter. Learned first appellate Court while perusing the record of the RIICO clearly mentioned that offer of the I.K. Associates was accepted without approval of [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (14 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] the Head Office and in a day allotment letter was also issued in favour of the I.K. Associates where offer of the I.K. Associates was much less than the bid offer. So, in my considered opinion, offer of the plaintiff of Rs. 310/- per square meter had to be accepted by the RIICO authorities because Special Auction Notice was a special offer and after the offer given by the plaintiff, the RIICO authorities had to act upon it but they did not do and accordingly their action was arbitrary and discriminatory towards the plaintiff. They applied two yardsticks for different persons. It is expected from the authorities of the RIICO to maintain parity while allotting the disputed land. So, offer of the plaintiff was concluded contract as has been rightly decided by the first appellate Court. So, substantial question of law Nos. 1 & 4 are decided in favour of the plaintiff. * Substantial question of law No. 2-: (ii) Whether the learned first appellate court was justified in directing allotment of Rs.15,150 sqr. mtr. commercial land in Industrial Area, Neemrana to the plaintiff-respondent only @ Rs.310/- per sqr. mtr. despite there being no prayer made in the plaint by the plaintiff? Learned senior counsel for the RIICO submits that in the plaint no prayer had been made for the allotment of alternative land equivalent to disputed land by the plaintiff. So, the first appellate Court had committed gross error in directing the defendant to allot commercial land of same size in same vicinity. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that Hon'ble Apex [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (15 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Court in various pronouncements has held that an amendment in appeal would not make amendment in the suit. So, finding of the first appellate Court is perverse with regard to allotment of the alternative land in the same vicinity to the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 SC 1103.

2. State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 (3) SCC 436.

3. Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRsS. and Ors. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO and submits that during the stay, RIICO had sub-divided the land in question and allotted sub-divided plots/land to various persons. In plaint, plaintiff sought the amendment for cancellation of the allotments to other persons. In appeal, plaintiff sought the amendment for alternative allotment of the land in the same vicinity and the said amendment was allowed by the first appellate Court. RIICO had not challenge the same. So, the order of the first appellate Court became final and the first appellate Court instead of cancelling the allotment made by the defendant during the stay, allowed the amendment and to avoid the legal complications the first appellate Court rightly directed to allot another 15,150 sq. ft. commercial land to the plaintiff in Industrial Area Neemrana at the same rate. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (16 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] While considering the matter for allotment of the land other than sub-divided by the RIICO Authorities, learned first appellate Court allowed the amendment of the plaintiff after hearing the RIICO. RIICO had not challenged the said amendment order. So, the said order became final. It is also an admitted position that during the stay order RIICO Authorities had sub-divided the disputed plot/land and allotted the same to various persons who were impleaded as a party before the trial Court. Learned first appellate Court while allowing the amendment rightly thought that if allotment made to the various persons was cancelled then it would increase legal complications. So, in order to avoid these legal complications, the first appellate Court allowed the amendment and rightly directed RIICO to allot the 15,150 sq. ft. commercial land in Industrial Area Neemrana to the plaintiff @ Rs. 310/- per square meter. So, contention of the learned counsel for the RIICO that there was no such prayer of the plaintiff, is not tenable because first appellate Court had allowed the said amendment and in my considered opinion, appeal is a continuation of the suit. So, this substantial question of law is decided against the RIICO and in favour of the plaintiff. * Substantial question of Law No. 3: - (iii) Whether the learned first appellate court could have passed the impugned decree in the absence of suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff? Learned senior counsel for the RIICO submits that there was no concluded contract between the RIICO and plaintiff. So, bidder had no right to file the suit for mandatory injunction. It is a [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (17 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] prerogative of the competent authority whether to accept the highest bid or not. So, suit with regard to mandatory injunction is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. So, finding of the first appellate Court with regard to mandatory injunction is liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel for the RIICO has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2017 (4) SCC 43

2. U P Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. Vs. Om Prakash Sharma reported in (2013) 5 SCC 182. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO and submits that first appellate Court rightly granted mandatory injunction because RIICO authorities arbitrarily allotted the land in question to various persons during the stay order. The first appellate Court while granting the mandatory injunction clearly mentioned that contempt proceedings is to be initiated against RIICO and rightly ordered mandatory injunction on account of equity in favour of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that during the stay order, officials of the RIICO arbitrarily sub-divided the disputed plot/land and allotted the same to various persons which were later on impleaded as a party before the trial Court and the first appellate Court allowed the amendment with regard to alternative relief for allotment of the commercial land of same measurement at the same bid price. So, in my considered opinion, the first appellate [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (18 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] Court was justified in issuing the mandatory injunction in the absence of the declaration. So, present substantial question of law is also decided against the RIICO and in favour of the plaintiff. * Substantial question of Law No. 5-: (v) What is the effect of the interim order of the trial court dated 13.03.2001 on the sale of part of the land to a 3rd party by RIICO vide allotment letter dated 02.03.2001? Learned senior counsel for the RIICO submits that RIICO authorities had allotted sub-divided plot to third party on

02.03.2001, while the interim order was passed thereafter on

13.03.2001. So, on that date, there was no stay order. So, the first appellate Court had wrongly came to the conclusion that while operating the stay order, allotment was made. So, this substantial question of law be decided in favour of the RIICO. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO and submits that the interim order was continued till 13.03.2001. Admittedly, the sale was made during the pendency of the suit. So, on account of continuation of stay, the first appellate Court rightly ordered to allot the commercial land of equal measurement in the same vicinity to the plaintiff. So, the present substantial question of law be decided in favour of the plaintiff. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the RIICO as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that interim stay order on sale to third party was continued till 13.03.2001 but RIICO authorities [2025:RJ-JP:27366] (19 of 19) [CSA-104/2012] arbitrarily allotted the disputed land to other persons. Therefore, the first appellate Court rightly directed the RIICO authorities to allot the land of equal measurement in the same vicinity to the plaintiff at the same rate. Accordingly, the present substantial question of law is also decided against the RIICO. For the above stated reasons, the appeal filed by the RIICO deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly because RIICO has utterly failed to prove any substantial questions of law in its favour. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Tahir/117 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J