ORDER
Uma Nath Singh, J.
1. This order shall also dispose of L.P. A. No. 218/2000 as both the Appeals impugn the order dated 7-3-2000 passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 3854/97, whereby the petition has been allowed with directions to the appellant Jabalpur Development Authority (for short ‘the J.D.A.’) to take consequential steps in the light of promise to execute a sale deed in respect of disputed land admeasuring 720 sq. fts., said to have been allotted to the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein), in accordance with law on his compliance of necessary conditions.
2. The said piece of land admeasuring 720 sq. fts. seems to have been allotted to the respondent No. 1 at a rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. as per letter dated 12-10-88 and, he is said to have deposited the price amount of Rs. 4320/-, on demand by the J.D.A. Therefore, he (the respondent No. 1) contends that the J.D.A. is under obligation to execute a lease deed in his favour, which, but for injunction in Civil Suit No. 477-1/94 filed by Smt. Vimla Devi Naik (respondent No. 2) and Ku. Sweta Singhai (respondent No. 3) would have been executed in 1988 itself. It is also said that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are equally interested in the disputed land being adjoining to their plots but they could not succeed in civil litigation.
3. As regards a brief background of the case, Plot No. 4/1, being a part of Khasra No. 328/2, having an area of 3797 sq. fts. situated in Village Hinotiya in the District of Jabalpur was purchased by the respondent No. 1 on 7-2-1963. The Jabalpur Town Improvement Trust, predecessor of the J.D.A., acquired the said land under relevant provisions of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 for Scheme No. 11. The land being free from all encumbrances was vested in the trust sometime in 1978. The trust, in lieu there of, agreed to lease out the Plot No. 635 having an area of 3900 sq. fts., without development cost, to the respondent No. 1, who was asked to pay for excess land of 103 sq. fts. at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. as the land under acquisition was only 3797 sq. fts. in area whereas the plot allotted to him was larger in size by a difference of 103 sq. fts. A lease deed in respect of the allotted land was executed and registered in favour of the respondent No. 1 on 29-7-1978 and thus, the said transaction stood concluded.
4. Adjoining the aforesaid allotted land was lying a vacant land admeasuring about 720 sq. fts. According to the respondent No. 1, he made a request for allotment of that land and the same was allocated to him by the then Div. Commissioner, Jabalpur, also being the Chairman of the Jabalpur Improvement Trust, at a rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. And thereafter, as stated hereinabove, the case had a chequered background of civil litigation between the parties with a brief stint of operation of an injunction against execution of lease 4eed, being the subject-matter of the Civil Suit No. 477-A/94 which was ultimately dismissed on 20th January, 1997, and thereupon, the Civil Appeal No. 54-A/96 which was also dismissed on 15-10-1998. Thus, according to the respondent No. 1, dispute in respect of the land in question also stood finally settled in his favour.
5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 filed the Writ Petition No. 3854/94 which has been allowed by the impugned order, mainly on the ground that allotment of the land in question was never rescinded and only on account of civil litigation filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the J.D.A (appellant herein) can not go back with its promise to execute a lease deed in favour of the respondent No. 1. The principal submissions of the J.D.A. in the L.P.As. are that the allotment of the said land was done by the Divisional Commissioner being the then Chairman of the Improvement Trust, only at a rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. ft. without following relevant provisions of law and also without taking into account the market price of the land which would be presently about one lac and forty thousand rupees. The appellant also submits that the allotment file was not traceable in the office of J.D.A. and a demand note for price of the said land was sent by the J.D.A. under repeated correspondence by the Government although it had no locus to interfere with the affairs of the J.D.A. and direct allotment of the land in question in utter violation of relevant provisions. On the other hand, case of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who had also been making efforts for allotment of the said piece of land is that the land in question is adjoining to theirs and therefore, they are also entitled to lay a claim over that. According to them, in the civil suit, the learned Trial Judge has left an option open to the J.D.A for re-allotting the land to any person which was not challenged in any further proceedings nor did the respondent file a counter-claim in the said suit for possession of the disputed land. Thus, according to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, issue of allotment could not have been challenged by way of a writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order directing the appellant to perform its promise by giving possession and executing a lease deed is patently erroneous.
6. On due consideration of rival submissions so also from perusal of the documents, we are of the view that there is no ambiguity as regards ownership of the land in question, which is vested in the J.D.A Nevertheless, as the land was allotted to the respondent No. 1 way back in 1988, even though in violation of relevant provisions of law, his prayer for issuance of appropriate writ for execution of a lease deed in respect thereof deserved consideration. However, looking to the circumstances of the case, Rule 27 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975, being the relevant provision, could not have been slurred over and it shall come into play herein. The said Rule on reproduction reads as under :–
“27. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 24 to 26, the Authority may dispose of any land by sale without auction or exchange in the following cases:–
(a) Where the land is to be transferred to the Government of India or the State Government. (b) Where the plot is to be transferred is adjacent to a largest plot held previously by a person who has asked for such adjoining plot. (c) Where consequential to an agreement for abandonment a piece of land is to sold to person whose property is to be abandoned to fit the property in the authority layout. (d) Where the authority land is to be exchanged with adjoining private or Government land for the purpose of a regular layout of plots or for adjustment of the boundaries of private property the acquisition of which is proposed to be abandoned." As a corollary, upon operation of Rule 27 as above, Rule 28 would also have to be applied, which on reproduction reads as under :-- "28. Any transfer of the authority land in pursuance of above Rule 27 shall be made on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the authority."
7. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Rule, it appears that Sub-rule (b) of Rule 27, empowers the J.D.A. to transfer the land in question to the respondent No. 1 as he fulfils the requirements of the rule. In addition to that, looking to back ground, it would not be open to the J.D.A. to gain-say that it could not have executed a sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 1. Thus, it would be equitable and expedient in the interest of justice to direct the J.D.A. to execute a lease deed in favour of the respondent No. 1, who claims to have deposited the price in respect thereof in 1988 itself. Moreover, in terms of Rule 28, it would also be expedient to direct the respondent No. 1 to keep the land vacant which he may use only for horticulture purpose. Accordingly, it is so directed.
8. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, the L.P.A. Nos. 218/2000 and 219/2000 are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.