# Kul Bhushan Virmani & Ors v. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1076 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-01-08 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 17774 of 2013 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Vipin Chandra Dixit - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kul-bhushan-virmani-ors-v-rajya-krishi-utpadan-mandi-parishad-u-p-ors-45536 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote S.C., Sri Satish Madhyan, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi A. Petitioner's bid for purchase of the house was accepted-allotted the housePetitioner paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,75,000/--given possession-sale deed not executedadditional amount of Rs. 1,35,607/- for getting sale deed registered -Respondent obliged to execute the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner without any additional amount. Writ Petition allowed. (E-9) ## Text 1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES with his personal work. Thereafter, the petitioner Company approached another person to act as its representative and got the application filed without any further delay on 11.6.2018. The Labour Court has observed that the petitioner has offered a confusing explanation and in case it was having knowledge that its authorised representative was visiting his home district on regular basis, it ought to have authorised another person to act on its behalf. Evidently, the Tribunal has completely misread the explanation offered by the petitioner. In M.K. Prasad (supra) where also explanation offered was that the counsel did not appear after a particular date to contest the case without any information to the party, the Supreme Court has observed thus:- "10. In the instant case, the appellant tried to explain the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree as is evident from his application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act accompanied by his own affidavit. Even though the appellant appears not to be as vigilant as he ought to have been, yet his conduct does not, on the whole, warrant to castigate him as an irresponsible litigant. He should have been more vigilant but on his failure to adopt such extra vigilance should not have been made a ground for ousting him from the litigation with respect to the property, concededly to be valuable..." 18. In my opinion, it is a fit case where the explanation offered has to be accepted in the interest of justice. While at the same time, the inconvenience cause to the respondent workman could be compensated in terms of cost. 19. Accordingly, the application dated 11.6.2018 filed by the petitioner for setting aside exparte award is allowed. The exparte award dated 20.12.2017 is set aside subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondent-workman within three weeks from today. The Tribunal shall now decide the matter afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 20. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. ---------- (2020)1ILR 1076 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J. Writ C No. 17774 of 2013 Kul Bhushan Virmani & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.P. Singh Counsel for the Respondents: S.C., Sri Satish Madhyan, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi A. Petitioner's bid for purchase of the house was accepted-allotted the housePetitioner paid the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,75,000/--given possession-sale deed not executedadditional amount of Rs. 1,35,607/- for getting sale deed registered -Respondent obliged to execute the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner without any additional amount. Writ Petition allowed. (E-9) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. & Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) 1 All. M/S Universal Cylinders Ltd. Vs. The Presiding Officer Labour Court (2), U.P. Kanpur & Ors. 1077 1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh,learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Senior Counsel on behalf of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (In short Mandi Parishad). 2. The Mandi Parishad had purchased 8 Higher Income Group (H.I.G.) houses, situate in Pallaupuram, Phase-II, Meerut from Meerut Development Authority (In short M.D.A.). 3. The aforesaid houses were put under use of the Officers of the Mandi Parishad as their official residences. After several years, Mandi Parishad decided to sell of the said houses and accordingly invited tenders for the sale of the same. 4. The terms and conditions of the tender/sale of the houses were contained in the brochure issued with the tender forms. The petitioner after purchasing the tender form submitted his tender for the purchase of one of the houses. His bid was accepted as it was amongst the highest. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner was allotted one of the houses i.e. MH-16 for a total sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- vide letter dated 19.08.1996. Subsequently in place of house No.16, the petitioner was allotted house No.14 for the same consideration. 6. The petitioner deposited the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- and was given possession of it on 25.10.1996. However, the sale deed was not executed. The petitioner repeatedly requested the respondents to execute the sale deed but instead of executing the sale deed, they served him a letter dated 10.01.1999 requiring him to deposit an additional amount of Rs.1,35,607/- for getting the sale deed registered as the M.D.A. from whom the Mandi Parishad had purchased the said house was required to pay additional amount as compensation to the farmers from whom the land was acquired. Subsequently, this demand of additional amount was raised to Rs.1,90,101/- vide letter dated 03.03.2001 and to Rs.4,29,409/- vide letter dated 24.03.2009. 7. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to execute the sale deed in respect of house No.MH-14, situate in Pallaupuram, Phase-II, Meerut pursuant to the allotment letter dated 19.08.1996 as modified vide letter dated 04.09.1996 without realising any additional amount of sale consideration except the one mentioned in the allotment letter. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit in response to the writ petition to which even rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Thus, as the pleadings are complete counsel for the parties agree for the final disposal of the petition at the stage of the admission itself. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the allotment letter on record the petitioner is entitle to a sale deed in respect of allotted house on the sale consideration mentioned therein as that was the highest amount of the bid of the petitioner which was accepted. The respondents cannot demand any additional sale consideration for any reason much less for the reason that the previous owner of the house is required to pay some additional compensation to the farmers. The terms and conditions of the 1078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES allotment or the tenders do not provide that the bid amount or the sale consideration on which the tender of the petitioner is accepted can be revised altered or changed. 10. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, has justified the action of the respondents in demanding the additional amount on the ground that under the terms and conditions of the tender, the Director of the Mandi Parishad had reserved right to modify the rules and conditions of the tender at any time which would be binding upon the parties. 11. He further submits that the additional demand has been made for the reason that pursuant to the judgement of the Supreme Court the compensation payable to the farmers had increased. Therefore, the M.D.A. has shifted the proportionate component of the said burden upon the Mandi Parishad in respect of the said house and accordingly, additional demand has been made from the petitioner. 12. The basic demand of additional amount is Rs.1,35,607/- as on 11.01.1999 but on account of its non-payment by applying interest it has increased from time to time. The petitioner is not entitled to any parity with the case of Ramesh Chandra Jain as on reconsideration of his matter, the demand of additional amount against him was waived vide order dated 21.03.2011 of the Mandi Parishad but subsequently after execution of the sale deed in his favour on 26.05.2011 as it transpired that the waiver is incorrect the demand has again been issued in his name of the additional amount. 13. There is no dispute to the fact that the aforesaid 8 houses including the one allotted to the petitioner were constructed by the M.D.A. after developing the acquired land. The M.D.A. has sold the said houses to the Mandi Parishad long back and the said sale deeds have become conclusive. 14. It is pertinent to mention here that once a sale deed has been executed and the entire sale consideration has been paid the vendor cannot subsequently raise demand of any additional sale consideration for any reason unless there is contrary stipulation in the sale deed. 15. The Mandi Parishad had purchased the said houses from the M.D.A. and after utilising them for a number of years had auctioned them and that in the auction the following 8 persons including the petitioner were successful and their bids were accepted. MH-1 Smt. Naveena Chabra Rs.5.00 lacs. MH-2 R.S. Kashyap Rs.5.00 lacs MH-3 S.S. Lohia Rs.5.00 lacs MH-4 Major Narendra Singh Rs.5.00 lacs MH-13 Shri Yogendra Gupta Rs.4.75 lacs MH-14 Kul Bhushan Virmani Rs.4,75 lacs MH-15 Smt. Vijay Laxmi Rs.4.75 lacs MH-16 Ramesh Chandra Jain Rs.4.75 lacs 16. The bid of the petitioner was for Rs.4,75,000/- which amount the petitioner had deposited in time. Accordingly, he was put in possession of the house on 25.10.1996. Thus, only the sale deed remain to be executed. 1 All. Kul Bhushan Virmani & Ors. Vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. & Ors. 1079 17. Along with the petitioner the bid of one Ramesh Chandra Jain was also accepted in respect of MH-16 again for the same amount of sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-. He also deposited the entire sale consideration in time but sale deed even his favour was not executed. An additional demand of similar amount was also issued against him on 28.01.2008. In fact the said demand was a common demand to all the bidders including the petitioner and the aforesaid Ramesh Chandra Jain. 18. However, the Mandi Parishad vide order dated 21.03.2011 ignored the additional demand raised against the aforesaid Ramesh Chandra Jain and executed the sale deed in his favour on 26.05.2011. It is said that after the execution of the sale deed it was realised that the additional demand was incorrectly ignored and therefore, again a fresh demand of the additional amount has been raised against him. 19. The terms and conditions of the tender have been annexed by the petitioner as annexure-1 to the petition and the same are not in dispute. The said conditions clearly provides for submission of tenders in sealed covers in respect of aforesaid 8 houses. 20. The Committee constituted for accepting the tenders was required to accept the highest tenders in respect of each of the houses whereupon 50% of the tender amount was to be deposited immediately and the balance in three months. It also provided that the possession would be delivered only after deposit of the entire amount. 21. Clause-12 of the conditions of the tender is important which provides that the Director Mandi Parishad is empowered to modify the terms and conditions of the tender and the conditions so modified would be acceptable to the parties. 22. In addition to the above, Clause 5 provides that the Committee has the right to exclude any property from the auction. 23. It is admitted that the house allotted to the petitioner has not been excluded from the auction and therefore, its auction in favour of the petitioner is final and conclusive as on date. 24. The Director Mandi Parishad has not even modified any of the terms and conditions of the tender notice. 25. The sale consideration is not part of the tender or its terms and conditions and as such could not have been modified by taking aid of Clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the tender. The said Clause permitting modification in the terms and conditions of the tender is in reference to the manner of allotment as laid down in the tender notice and is not referable to the sale consideration which was not even known to any one at the time of issuance of the tender notice. The said Clause as such do not envisages for modifying the sale consideration or the bid amount submitted by the petitioner. 26. In view of above, the submission of Sri Chaturvedi, that the respondents are entitle to modify the terms and conditions and thus have right to increase the sale consideration is bereft of merit and cannot be accepted. The modification of the terms and conditions of the tender is quite distinct and separate an issue then the 1080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES alteration or increase of sale consideration which is not part of it. 27. Secondly, as stated above, the bid amount tendered by the petitioner could not be changed by the respondents. The petitioner had never agreed or offered to purchase the house in dispute on any higher amount than that mentioned in the tender. The said tender amount is the amount offered and accepted and is not liable to change unilaterally by the respondents. At best the respondents could have refused to accept the offer by holding it to be on the lower side or cancelled the auction or have excluded the property from the auction which acts were never performed by them. 28. Thus, there is concluded contract between the parties for the sale of the said house on the consideration on which the tender was accepted i.e. Rs.4,75,000/-. The respondents as such are not justified in making any additional amount for any reason. 29. Thirdly, the burden of the M.D.A. to pay additional compensation to the farmers for the acquired land cannot be shifted upon the petitioner. The petitioner is not the purchaser of the house from the M.D.A. rather he has purchased it in auction from the Mandi Parishad. The petitioner is too remote to the liability of payment of additional compensation, if any, fastened upon the M.D.A. 30. Admittedly, Ramesh Chandra Jain was also allotted one of the houses pursuant to the same tender notice in which the petitioner was allotted the house in question. Both of them were allotted the respective houses on the same sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-each. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Jain, the demand of additional amount of sale consideration was waived and the sale deed was executed. 31. There is no reason to give a different treatment to the petitioner and in not executing the sale deed in his favour by ignoring the additional demand. 32. The submission that the additional demand was incorrectly waived in the case of Ramesh Chandra Jain and that after the execution of the sale deed a fresh demand has been issued against him is of no consequence as once a sale deed has been executed, the amount mentioned therein cannot be altered so as to permit the vendor to demand higher sale consideration. 33. In the last, the petitioner had admittedly deposited the entire sale consideration on or before 27.01.1997 whereas the judgement of the Supreme Court directing for payment of enhance compensation to the farmers has come on 30.04.1997. During the above period 27.01.1997 to 30.04.1997 there was no legal impediment on part of the respondents for not executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Had the sale deed been executed during the above period, the transaction would have come to a close, leaving no room for demand of any additional consideration. The respondents themselves are to be blamed for the delay in executing the sale deed or in not executing the sale deed within the above period. 34. Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there was a conscious decision on part of the Mandi Parishad to sell the house in question to the petitioner on the sale consideration of Rs.4,75,000/- and the petitioner having paid the said amount in 1 All. Kul Bhushan Virmani & Ors. Vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad U.P. & Ors. 1081 time, the respondents were obliged to execute the sale deed in his favour without demanding any additional sale consideration. 35. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondents to execute the sale deed of house No. MH14 situate in Pallaupuram, Phase-II, Meerut in favour of the petitioner on the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 19.08.1996 and 04.09.1996 without demanding any additional amount other than that mentioned in the allotment letters most expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. 36. The Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to costs. ---------- (2020)1ILR 1080 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Writ C No. 22837 of 2002 State of U.P. ...Petitioner Versus The A.D.J. Sonbhadra & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: S.C. Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sri R.C. Srivastava, Sri R.V. Chaudhary, S.C. A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 - Notification by state government - Section 5 - Bar of accrual of forest-rights - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 131-A - Bhumidhari rights in gaon sabha or state government land in certain circumstances - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Respondent having no evidence to establish a right to possess or to work the land as may have existed prior to 4 July 1970 when the plots in question came to be included in the proposed reserved forest - The respondent asserted a right over the land only from 1978 - Neither any evidence , nor any proof referred to by the Forest Settlement Officer in order to establish a right of cultivatory possession being exercised by the respondent from prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 - Barred by Section 5 of the 1927 Act. - Respondent not entitled for benefit under Section 131-A of U.P.Z.A. and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (Para 23) The dispute relates to Plot included in a notification issued by the State under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 on 4 July 1970 - Once the notification under Section 4 of the 1927 Act came to be issued on 4 July 1970, the statutory restraint comprised in Section 5 of that Act also applied - Section 5, it becomes important to recall, prohibits the acquisition of rights in or over land comprised in a Section 4 notification except by way of succession, grant, or contract in writing made by the Government - Section 131-A as is evident does not override or eclipse the prohibition put in place by Section 5 of the 1927 Act - to accord a harmonious construction upon Section 131-A of the 1950 Act bearing in mind Section 5 of the 1927 Act, it must be interpreted to extend at best to land held in cultivatory possession from prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4. (Para 22 & 24) Held: - No rights could have either accrued, stood created or been acquired after the notification under Section 4 came to be issued and the land stood included in the proposed reserved forest. The claim of the respondent barred by Section 5 of the 1927 Act. No relief was liable to be granted to the private respondent under Section 131-A of U.P.