Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar (Raj.) v. Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar Through Secretary Urban Improvement Trust, Near Bh

: Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 08/04/2025

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 11.09.2024, dismissal of T.I. Application No.99/2024 in pending civil suit by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Alwar.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant misc. appeal are that the plaintiff appellant has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein he filed an application for temporary injunction against respondent-defendant with the averment that defendant has advertised E-auction of land measuring 1594 sq. meters on 29.01.2021 and the plaintiff-firm has participated in said auction. The petitioner further averred that the petitioner – firm remained as highest bidder and auction was released in his favour. The plaintiff-firm has deposited 15% of [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (2 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] total amount on 20.02.2021, thereafter, there were some agreement between the parties but defendant has breached the terms of agreement. The plaintiff has served a letter also a legal notice but on 31.07.2024, the defendant has forfeited 15% of the deposited amount and cancelled the auction. The plaintiff has challenged the notice and letter and sought injunction to protect the auction proceedings during pendency of civil suit.

3. Defendant has filed a reply and admitted that after auction, plaintiff – firm has deposited 15% amount on 20.02.2021 but plaintiff has not deposited remaining amount, therefore, the amount deposited by plaintiff was forfeited and auction was cancelled.

4. Learned trial court after considering the material on record has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on ground that the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss were not made out in favour of appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance upon grounds of appeal submitted that in a pubic auction, the appellant was highest bidder and as per terms of auction, he deposited more than two crores (15%). He further referred the facts and submitted that the defendant has agreed that as per lay-out plan, they will provide a 12 meter wide road but same is not provided till date, as there were encroachments. He further submitted that the possession of land was already handed over to the plaintiff and instead of removing encroachment or shops constructed on road, the defendant has forfeited 15% of the amount deposited by plaintiff and cancelled the auction. He submits that it is a bilateral contract between the parties and the defendant has failed to [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (3 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] perform his part of contract, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for protection from the Court. He also submitted that the plaintiff has challenged the cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount. He further submitted that till date the road as promised by defendant was not made available, so the defendant is not entitled for remaining amount. He further referred the findings of trial court and submitted that the trial court has decided prima facie case against the legal position, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and appellant-plaintiff is entitled for injunction.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that on basis of auction / notification, the plaintiff has participated in the auction proceedings and being highest bidder, he has deposited 15% of the amount but he was aware that remaining amount is required to be deposited within timeline as provided under the auction terms. He submits that the defendant was ready and willing to provide road as promised by defendant but without deposition of remaining 85% of auction amount by plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any equity against the defendant. He further submits that despite time to deposit remaining amount, the plaintiff has failed to deposit, therefore, the defendant has rightly cancelled the auction and forfeited the deposited amount.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Admittedly, 1594 sq. meter commercial plot was publically auctioned by the defendant. The plaintiff was highest bidder and he deposited 15% of total amount. As per letter dated 04.03.2021 issued by defendant, the auction was confirmed by the Chairman [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (4 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] on 13.02.2021. Out of total sale amount ₹15,95,59,400/-, the plaintiff (highest bidder) was required to be deposit ₹5,90,77,828/- within 240 days of auction and remaining ₹7,97,79,700/- was required within 360 days (upto 23.01.2022).

9. The letter issued to plaintiff clearly indicate that by

25.09.2021, the plaintiff was required to deposit ₹5,90,77,828/- and by 23.05.2022 ₹ 7,97,79,700/- but he has not deposited any amount after initial deposit of 15%. There is no document, to indicate that time period was extended till cancellation of auction proceedings.

10. As per plaintiff, he wrote a letter on 12.08.2021 about non availability of 40 feet wide road adjoining the disputed plot. The plaintiff has further sent notice on 04.10.2021 and 22.11.2021. The plaintiff has further wrote letters on 01.12.2022 and

16.05.2023.

11. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not deposited any amount other than 15% initial amount, meaning thereby 85% amount required to be deposited by plaintiff, was neither deposited nor tendered to UIT (defendant). Now plaintiff want an injunction to restrain defendant from further action of a plot which was auctioned in January, 2021 (during period of COVID-19) @ ₹15,95,59,400/-. The plaintiff has only deposited ₹2,39,33,910/-, which is 15% but he has not deposited ₹13,88,57,528/-. The first deadline for deposit was 25.09.2021 and a month before the deadline the plaintiff has submitted a letter demanding a 40 feet wide road as promised in scheme. The last deadline was 23.01.2022 and the plaintiff has not deposited remaining 85% of sale amount. [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (5 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024]

12. The defendant exercising option as available in letter dated

04.03.2021 about deemed cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount, has acted to forfeiture the amount deposited by plaintiff.

13. A letter dated 04.03.2021 is available on record and same is filed by plaintiff himself. Thus the plaintiff was aware about cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount, in case he fails to deposit remaining 85% of the amount.

14. Having considered the fact that the plaintiff is a commercial entity and defendant is acting in public trust, therefore, the defendant cannot breach any of condition as mentioned in letter dated 04.03.2021. If plaintiff has not deposited the amount within time, the defendant was duty bound to act in accordance with conditions as mentioned therein. The defendant instead of taking action immediately has recommended the case to Government on

01.09.2023. It indicate that the defendant is favouring the plaintiff. The swiftness of UIT was curtail by the Government vide letter dated 13.06.2024, while referring the condition attached with allotment letter.

15. Having considered aforesaid, it is apparent on record that in a commercial contract, the plaintiff was duty bound to deposit the remaining amount as per terms of the contract, but herein the plaintiff has failed to deposit the amount. The plaintiff was well aware at the time of auction about the vicinity and road size available on spot. The plaintiff has not acquired any right unless he deposited entire amount to defendant. The auction of land by UIT should be in a transparent process and after auction and allotment letter, the parties are not free to change their stands. [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (6 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] The plaintiff cannot raise any ground of non-availability of road. Similarly, UIT or District Collector, Alwar has not authority to recommend realization of remaining amount in installments. It appears that the Collector posted at relevant time was in fact hand in gloves with the plaintiff and tried to favour the plaintiff. The trial court has rightly considered the facts of the case and has not committed any error while deciding prima faice case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss against the plaintiff.

16. In case of breach or frustration of any contract, the proper remedy is suit for compensation. Here in this case, the plaintiff may have right once he deposit the entire amount but not before payment of entire consideration. Therefore, the instant miscellaneous appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.

17. As a result, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 11.09.2024 is hereby dismissed.

18. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, for initiation of action against the then Collector, Alwar to favour appellant – plaintiff, while working as Chairman of UIT.

19. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. MR/93 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

: Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 08/04/2025

1. The instant civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 11.09.2024, dismissal of T.I. Application No.99/2024 in pending civil suit by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Alwar.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant misc. appeal are that the plaintiff appellant has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction wherein he filed an application for temporary injunction against respondent-defendant with the averment that defendant has advertised E-auction of land measuring 1594 sq. meters on 29.01.2021 and the plaintiff-firm has participated in said auction. The petitioner further averred that the petitioner – firm remained as highest bidder and auction was released in his favour. The plaintiff-firm has deposited 15% of [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (2 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] total amount on 20.02.2021, thereafter, there were some agreement between the parties but defendant has breached the terms of agreement. The plaintiff has served a letter also a legal notice but on 31.07.2024, the defendant has forfeited 15% of the deposited amount and cancelled the auction. The plaintiff has challenged the notice and letter and sought injunction to protect the auction proceedings during pendency of civil suit.

3. Defendant has filed a reply and admitted that after auction, plaintiff – firm has deposited 15% amount on 20.02.2021 but plaintiff has not deposited remaining amount, therefore, the amount deposited by plaintiff was forfeited and auction was cancelled.

4. Learned trial court after considering the material on record has dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on ground that the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss were not made out in favour of appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant while placing reliance upon grounds of appeal submitted that in a pubic auction, the appellant was highest bidder and as per terms of auction, he deposited more than two crores (15%). He further referred the facts and submitted that the defendant has agreed that as per lay-out plan, they will provide a 12 meter wide road but same is not provided till date, as there were encroachments. He further submitted that the possession of land was already handed over to the plaintiff and instead of removing encroachment or shops constructed on road, the defendant has forfeited 15% of the amount deposited by plaintiff and cancelled the auction. He submits that it is a bilateral contract between the parties and the defendant has failed to [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (3 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] perform his part of contract, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for protection from the Court. He also submitted that the plaintiff has challenged the cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount. He further submitted that till date the road as promised by defendant was not made available, so the defendant is not entitled for remaining amount. He further referred the findings of trial court and submitted that the trial court has decided prima facie case against the legal position, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside and appellant-plaintiff is entitled for injunction.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that on basis of auction / notification, the plaintiff has participated in the auction proceedings and being highest bidder, he has deposited 15% of the amount but he was aware that remaining amount is required to be deposited within timeline as provided under the auction terms. He submits that the defendant was ready and willing to provide road as promised by defendant but without deposition of remaining 85% of auction amount by plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any equity against the defendant. He further submits that despite time to deposit remaining amount, the plaintiff has failed to deposit, therefore, the defendant has rightly cancelled the auction and forfeited the deposited amount.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Admittedly, 1594 sq. meter commercial plot was publically auctioned by the defendant. The plaintiff was highest bidder and he deposited 15% of total amount. As per letter dated 04.03.2021 issued by defendant, the auction was confirmed by the Chairman [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (4 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] on 13.02.2021. Out of total sale amount ₹15,95,59,400/-, the plaintiff (highest bidder) was required to be deposit ₹5,90,77,828/- within 240 days of auction and remaining ₹7,97,79,700/- was required within 360 days (upto 23.01.2022).

9. The letter issued to plaintiff clearly indicate that by

25.09.2021, the plaintiff was required to deposit ₹5,90,77,828/- and by 23.05.2022 ₹ 7,97,79,700/- but he has not deposited any amount after initial deposit of 15%. There is no document, to indicate that time period was extended till cancellation of auction proceedings.

10. As per plaintiff, he wrote a letter on 12.08.2021 about non availability of 40 feet wide road adjoining the disputed plot. The plaintiff has further sent notice on 04.10.2021 and 22.11.2021. The plaintiff has further wrote letters on 01.12.2022 and

16.05.2023.

11. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not deposited any amount other than 15% initial amount, meaning thereby 85% amount required to be deposited by plaintiff, was neither deposited nor tendered to UIT (defendant). Now plaintiff want an injunction to restrain defendant from further action of a plot which was auctioned in January, 2021 (during period of COVID-19) @ ₹15,95,59,400/-. The plaintiff has only deposited ₹2,39,33,910/-, which is 15% but he has not deposited ₹13,88,57,528/-. The first deadline for deposit was 25.09.2021 and a month before the deadline the plaintiff has submitted a letter demanding a 40 feet wide road as promised in scheme. The last deadline was 23.01.2022 and the plaintiff has not deposited remaining 85% of sale amount. [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (5 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024]

12. The defendant exercising option as available in letter dated

04.03.2021 about deemed cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount, has acted to forfeiture the amount deposited by plaintiff.

13. A letter dated 04.03.2021 is available on record and same is filed by plaintiff himself. Thus the plaintiff was aware about cancellation of auction and forfeiture of deposited amount, in case he fails to deposit remaining 85% of the amount.

14. Having considered the fact that the plaintiff is a commercial entity and defendant is acting in public trust, therefore, the defendant cannot breach any of condition as mentioned in letter dated 04.03.2021. If plaintiff has not deposited the amount within time, the defendant was duty bound to act in accordance with conditions as mentioned therein. The defendant instead of taking action immediately has recommended the case to Government on

01.09.2023. It indicate that the defendant is favouring the plaintiff. The swiftness of UIT was curtail by the Government vide letter dated 13.06.2024, while referring the condition attached with allotment letter.

15. Having considered aforesaid, it is apparent on record that in a commercial contract, the plaintiff was duty bound to deposit the remaining amount as per terms of the contract, but herein the plaintiff has failed to deposit the amount. The plaintiff was well aware at the time of auction about the vicinity and road size available on spot. The plaintiff has not acquired any right unless he deposited entire amount to defendant. The auction of land by UIT should be in a transparent process and after auction and allotment letter, the parties are not free to change their stands. [2025:RJ-JP:16145] (6 of 6) [CMA-4155/2024] The plaintiff cannot raise any ground of non-availability of road. Similarly, UIT or District Collector, Alwar has not authority to recommend realization of remaining amount in installments. It appears that the Collector posted at relevant time was in fact hand in gloves with the plaintiff and tried to favour the plaintiff. The trial court has rightly considered the facts of the case and has not committed any error while deciding prima faice case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss against the plaintiff.

16. In case of breach or frustration of any contract, the proper remedy is suit for compensation. Here in this case, the plaintiff may have right once he deposit the entire amount but not before payment of entire consideration. Therefore, the instant miscellaneous appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.

17. As a result, the instant civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 11.09.2024 is hereby dismissed.

18. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, for initiation of action against the then Collector, Alwar to favour appellant – plaintiff, while working as Chairman of UIT.

19. Misc. application, if any, also stands disposed of. MR/93 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J