2017 (11) TMI 1714 - SC - Indian Laws

Auction settlement by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board - Held that - The claim of the Respondent for settlement of a government property by way of a private largesse without open advertisement is completely unfounded in the law. Its letter dated 30.06.1999 requesting for a sympathetic consideration for settlement with it as otherwise the property was likely to be occupied by encroachers is but a travesty of the law. The plea that the Respondent was never made aware of the order of cancellation dated 22.02.2000 merits no consideration as it was also revealed in the counter affidavit of the State of Maharashtra dated 11.07.2005 in Writ Petition No. 2112 of 2005. The cancellation order was addressed to MHADA and copy marked to the Respondent. There shall be a presumption in law that a government communication was properly made and reached the addressee under Section 114 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not the case of the Respondent that the order never came to be issued and remained in the file. The Respondent despite awareness never challenged the cancellation and which sets at naught its entire claim. Any offer made to the Respondent in teeth of and after the cancellation was therefore redundant. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Controversy over auction settlement by MHADA, provisional acceptance of bid, cancellation orders, right of settlement, change in permissible land usage, negotiation with MHADA, equity in settlement, private negotiation, fresh tenders, settlement by public auction, interest on deposits.

Analysis:

1. Auction Settlement by MHADA:
The appeals arise from a dispute regarding the auction settlement of a plot of land by MHADA in Mumbai. The auction notice published in 2004 led to a series of litigations between the parties, identified as the Appellant and Respondent. The Respondent had a pre-existing right to settlement, while the Appellant's bid was provisionally accepted.

2. Provisional Acceptance and Cancellation of Bids:
The Appellant, being the highest bidder, had its bid provisionally accepted, but the order was later canceled, leading to legal challenges. The Respondent also offered to increase its bid, leading to further complications. The High Court's intervention and subsequent orders regarding fresh tender processes added complexity to the situation.

3. Right of Settlement and Equity:
Both parties claimed rights to settlement based on different grounds, including equity and prior negotiations with MHADA. The Appellant argued for a right of first refusal or settlement by private negotiation, while the Respondent sought an opportunity to match the highest offer.

4. Change in Permissible Land Usage:
The fundamental issue of a change in permissible land usage from commercial to residential purposes significantly impacted the dispute. This change necessitated a fresh tender process, considering the substantial time elapsed since the original advertisement.

5. Settlement by Public Auction:
The Court emphasized the importance of settling government land through public auctions to ensure the best price and uphold public interest. Any negotiated settlement without open advertisement was deemed legally unfounded.

6. Interest on Deposits:
The judgment addressed the issue of interest on deposits made by the parties. The Respondent was not entitled to interest on its deposit, which was to be refunded. The Appellant, though wronged, was awarded interest on its deposit but only until a specified date.

7. Conclusion:
After considering all submissions and records, the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, finding them lacking in merit. The judgment highlighted the need for transparency in land settlements, adherence to legal procedures, and the importance of public auctions in such matters.

This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Supreme Court's findings and conclusions in the judgment.