IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR
S.B. C.W.P. No. XXXX/2013
M/S ABC...................................PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS......................RESPONDENTS
________________________________________________________________
FACTS OF CASE
1.

That the petitioner firm1 is doing business of agricultural produce

at Shop No.113, , Bikaner, on basis of monthly rent/allotment
fees.

2.That the respondents had issued the Allotment policy of 2005 for
allotment of shops/godowns/pids in the Mandi Yard 2. The
respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 21.11.2006
1 Annexure 1 Copy of License.
2 Annexure 2 - Allotment policy of 2005
1

and asked the petitioner as to whether the petitioner would like to

have shop on allotment fees/on rent basis or it would like to have
the allotment on lease basis for 99 years, the option was open till
31.12.2010.
3.

That the petitioner also wanted to have the shop on lease basis,
hence, the petitioner made efforts to get the lease.

4. That the deputy secretary, department of agriculture government of

ajasthan, Jaipur has issued order 26.9.2012 by which clause 11
kha of the allotment policy of 2005 has been amended and
increased the payment of DLC Rate from 25% to 100 % for the
purposes to conversion of the shop from monthly rental basis top
lease basis for 99 years.
5.

That the respondent No.2 issued a communication dated

19.01.2011 asking the petitioner to exercise his option either for
monthly rent or on 99 years lease and DLC rates as on
01.04.2007 would be applicable i.e. Rs.1650/- per square ft.

It is pertinent to submit here that same authority asked earlier

vide communication dated 30.04.2008 that market value would
be Rs.1100/- per square ft. whereas they now demanded @
Rs.1650/- per square ft.
6.

That petitioner had submitted his view before respondent No. 2

that calculation on the basis of market value is not just and
proper. In reply to the said communication, the respondent No.2
intimated that in the nearest commercial area, the market value
is Rs.1100/- per square ft. Thereafter the respondent No.2 also
considered the matter in its meeting dated 17.01.2008 and the
respondent No.4 was asked to fix DLC rate for Mandi Yard.

7.

That the petitioner had challenged the notice dated 20/04/2011

by filing the writ petition before this honourable high court and
this court passed an ad-intrim order dated 9/6/2011 directing
the petitioner to deposit certain amount and sum of Rs.
4,68,250/- on 20.05.2011.

8.

That thereafter the learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court

vide its judgment dated 17.11.2011 decided a bunch of similar
3

writ petitions and gave a direction that DLC rate as on 01st of

April, 2007 should be determined and the petitioners would be
required to pay any amount as found payable by adjusting the
amount already paid by the interim order. The writ petition filed
by the petitioner was also decided vide order dated 18.11.2011 on
the basis of judgment dated 17.11.2011 3.
9. It is further submitted that against the order dated 17.11.2011 and
18.11.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents,
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and State of Rajasthan preferred
special appeals before the D.B of this Court being DBSAW
No.146/2012, however, the said intra-court appeals came to be
dismissed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide the
judgment dated 20.04.20124.
10. That the respondent krishi upaj mandi , [preffered an SLP before
the honble apex court and the same was also dismissed by the
apex court viz order dated 3.9.2012 and affirmed the order

3 Annexure 7
4 Annexure 8
4

passed by this court. And pursuant to the judgment of Apex

Court, the DLC rate for the period commencing with effect from
1/4/2007 was then fixed on 11/12/2012 for the approved and
sanctioned rates, issued by the Sub- Registrar, Bikaner 5.
11.

That the petitioner vide representations dated 28.01.2013 and

28.3.2013

submitted,

inter-alia,

that

according

to

the

approved/sanctioned DLC rate for the year 2007, the petitioner is

liable to deposit Rs.5,01,188/- for converting the shop of 99
years' lease basis as the petitioner had already deposited a sum
of Rs.4,68,250/- on 20.05.2011 and the petitioner also paid the
remaining balance amount of Rs.32,938 by cheque 6, but the
same has been returned by the respondent on the ground that
the amount is not calculated as per the amended clause 11([k) of
the allotment policy..
12.

That thereafter the petitioner vide its letters/representation dated

15.4.2013

and

23.6.2013

raised

various

objections

and

5 Annexure 10
6 Annexure 11
5

submitted interalia that the impugned demand be withdrawn and

the cheque already tendered by the petitioner from time to time
must be accepted and the shop of the petitioner be converted
from monthly basis to lease basis for 99 years.
13.

That the petitioner is challenging the application iof amended

clause 11 kha of the allotment policy of

2005 and also

challenging the demand notice dated 5/4/2013 issued by

respondent No. 2 on the following amongst grounds set out
hereinbelow without prejudice to each other.

ARGUMENTS SUBMISSION

(i)

DLC RATE WAS ILLEGAL AND UNJUST.

6

The petitioner was called upon to deposit 25% of the DLC rate
arrived at on the basis of Rs.1650/- per square feet, which DLC
rate, was found to be arbitrary, illegal and unjust by this Hon'ble
Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2011 and the order dated
17.11.2011 was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble

(ii)

Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2012.

PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO DEPOSIT 25% INSTEAD OF 100%
OF DLC RATEThe petitioner's shop from monthly rent basis to lease basis of 99
years, it is not open to call upon the petitioner to deposit 100% of
DLC rate instead of 25% and thus the impugned applicability of
the amended clause 11 ([k) of the Allotment Policy, 2005 made
vide order dated 26.9.2012, is manifestly malafide and illegal.

Therefore, the impugned demand notice deserves to be set aside.

(iii) APPLICABILITY OF AMENDED CLAUSE 11 KHA
That it is humbly submitted that the impugned applicability of
the alleged amended Clause 11 ([k) of the Allotment Policy, 2005,
is ex-facie illegal and impermissible inasmuch as the alleged
amended clause has not been published or notified as required by
the provision of sub-section (4) of section 36 of the Act of 1961.
4. NO RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
7

That the alleged amended clause cannot on any basis be made

applicable to the matter of the petitioner for the alleged amended
Clause 11 ([k) of the Policy of 2005 in as much as it cannot by
any stretch of imagination be accorded any retrospective effect.
5. RESPONDENTS DIDNT BOTHER ABOUT THE JUDGMENT
OF APEX COURT.
The impugned applicability of the said amended Clause 11 ([k)
by the respondent No.2 is not only in clear violation of letter and
spirit of the judgments, referred to above, but also is clearly in
contempt of the well established rules of law, equity and justice.
6. VIOLATION OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.
from the facts stated above, it is clear that the action of the
respondents in giving retrospective application to the amended
clause 11([k) of the Allotment policy and further directing the
petitioner to pay the amount as per the said amendment is illegal
and

against

the

doctrine

of

promissory

estoppel

as

the

respondents have already made the decision way back by

accepting the option submitted by the petitioner and requiring

the petitioner to pay as the clause 11 ([k) as it existed earlier.
In Dawson bank ltd. V. Nippon M. K Kaisha As Lord
Russell observed that Estoppel is not a cause of action.
It may, if established, assist a plaintiff in enforcing a
cause of action by preventing a defendant from denying
the existence of some fact essential to establish the cause
of action or (to put it in another way) by preventing a
defendant from asserting the existence of some fact, the
existence of which would destroy the cause of action

7. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

That the application of amended clause 11 ([k) of the Allotment
policy to the case of the petitioner is also violative of the
principles of natural justice and the amendment to the clause 11
([k) by way of a sub-sub delegated legislation cannot be
retrospectively applied to the case of the petitioner for the reasons
submitted above.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that by an appropriate
writ, order or direction this Honble Court may be pleased to:
a)

Allow the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

b)

Quash and set aside the impugned demand notice/ letter

dated 05.04.2013.

10

c)

Quash and set aside the impugned applicability of amended

Clause 11 ([k) of the Policy of 2005, amended vide the order dated
26.09.2012 .

d)

Direct the respondent No.2 to accept the balance amount,

which was remitted by the petitioner vide his letter dated
28.03.2013 and 28.6.2013.

e)

Any other order, which this Honble Court deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be
passed in favour of petitioner with cost.
COUNSEL
SHUBHAM MODI

11