Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Prakash Padia for the respondent-Corporation.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 14.6.2014 rejecting his representation that was decided pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court dated 20.5.2014 in Writ Petition No.28120 of 2014.
The dispute relates to the award of a dealership for an L.P.G. distributorship and the godown thereof. The defect pointed out in the candidature of the petitioner is that the petitioner had offered plot no.138 Ka for the site of the godown that was not found to be motorable.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity.
Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, then contended that alternate land was offered by the petitioner over plot nos.586/2, 932 and 1073. The finding recorded is that the said land was recorded in the name of the petitioner's grand-father and since the petitioner is an unmarried candidate, the definition of family unit as provided for in the brochure would attract the land of his father only and not that of his grand-father. The aforesaid position being clear, the petitioner rests his argument on the basis of family arrangement which has been arrived at between the father of the petitioner and his grand-father and 1/3rd of plot no.932, according to the said family arrangement, belongs to the petitioner's father. The said family arrangement and the document which has been filed on record is not a registered document nor has been given effect to in the revenue records. Thus, there is no reason to assume that the said property stood transferred or came under the ownership of the petitioner' father by such family arrangement by virtue of such transaction. Consequently, the claim with respect to plot no.932 also does not hold water.
The third argument of Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that another land of plot no.583 in village Durkhuru has been purchased by the petitioner and accordingly the same ought to be considered. It is on record that the said land was transferred in the name of the petitioner by virtue of a registered sale deed on 21.3.2014, much after the last date of the application form. Sri Sharma submits that an agreement to sell had been entered into long before and as such the transfer of land should be connected with the agreement to sell. A photostat copy of the agreement to sell has been filed on record which is on Rs.100/- non-judicial paper. We are unable to take legal notice of such an agreement to sell in respect of immovable property and the same would not amount any such transfer as alleged by the petitioner.
The transfer deed having been executed only in March 2014, therefore, cannot be pressed into service. In the aforesaid circumstances, all the three submissions raised by Sri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted and no error can be found in the impugned order for rejecting the claim of the petitioner due to non-availability of the land.
The petition lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 18.9.2014 Anand Sri./-