[2026:RJ-JP:2347-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1366/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12368/2011 Municipal Council, Sikar, Through Commissioner ----Appellant(Respondent No.2 in W.P.) Versus 1. Mahavir Prasad Jangid S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Piparali Road, Sikar. ---Respondent (Petitioner in W.P.) 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Urban Development, Housing And Local Self Government Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondent (Respondent No.1 in W.P.) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 20/01/2026 1. The appellant before us, the Municipal Council, Sikar challenges the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the learned Single Judge noticed that the Municipal Council put up auction of shops situated in Western Side of B-Block, Jatiya Market, Sikar measuring them to be of 120 Square Yards and the petitioner being the highest bidder deposited the 1/4th amount of the total auction amount. Later on, it was found that the shop actually measured 84.6 Square Yards alone, upon confronting with the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council sent a letter on 21.01.2011 admitting that the measurement of shop is 111 Square Yards and not 120 Square [2026:RJ-JP:2347-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1366/2025] Yards. The respondent- writ petitioner thereafter sent a letter to the Municipal Corporation pointing out that the allotted area should be recalculated and re-measured and accordingly, he may be allowed to deposit 3/4th of the amount. However, the appellant forfeited the earnest money of the petitioner and cancelled his bid. He, therefore, approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The learned Single Judge after having considered all the aspects reach to the conclusion that once the respondent themselves admitted of the shop not being of the area for which the auction was put up, namely, it was not of 120 Square Yards, but admitted it to be of 111 Square Yards. The request made by the respondent to re-measure the area of the allotted shop cannot be objected to and merely on the such request, the auction could not have been cancelled and the amount deposited by the petitioner could not have been forfeited. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the provisions contained in Annexure-A (Appendix) to The Rajasthan Municipalities (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 and specifically to Clause-f thereto, which provides as under: "[(f) (i) The successful bidder shall be required to deposit one-fourth of the amount of his bid forthwith on the acceptance of the bid and the remaining three-fourth of the amount of the bid shall be deposited by him within one month of the acceptance of the bid and in case of failure to deposit within the next thirty days, interest @ 15% per annum shall be charged retrospectively from the date of acceptance of the bid : Provided that in case of default in depositing the three-fourth amount of bid within the period prescribed above, the one-fourth of the amount of hte bid deposited by the bidder shall be forfeited and auction of land shall automatically stand cancelled : Provided further that the board may regularise such auction of land withdrawing the automatic cancellation [2026:RJ-JP:2347-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1366/2025] within a period of ten months from the date of such automatic cancellation if the successful bidder is prepared to pay the three-fourth amount of the bid money plus interest @ 15% per annum upto the regularisation of auction of land and in addition also an amount of penalty at the following rates:- Amount of the bid money Penalty after the date of automatic cancellation (a) not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 250/- p.m. (b) exceeding Rs. 5,000/- and upto Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 500/- p.m. (c) exceeding Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,000/- p.m. [(d) the amount of penalty mentioned in clause (a), (b) and (c) above shall not exceed the principal amount.] (ii) After the expiry of the period of ten months from the date of the said automatic cancellation, the board shall have no power to regularise such auction of land in any case. (iii) The board, if it considers necessary in its interest, may refer the case to the State Government for regularisation even after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) above. The State Government, after considering the recommendations made by the board, may permit such regularisation on payment by the bidder, the amount of bid plus interest and penalty as provided in sub-clause (i) above upto the month in which the case was referred to State Government by the Board : Provided that after depositing one-fourth of the amount of bid by the successful bidder, if he is restrained/not allowed to deposit the remaining amount by any act of the board or the State Government, as the case may be or resultant to any order of the court or any legal proceedings, the interim period shall not count for the purpose of calculating the amount of such penalty forfeiture of the one-fourth amount or automatic cancellation of the auction.]" 3. He submits that as per the said provisions, the action taken by the Municipal council cannot be objected to and the learned Single Judge has erred in setting aside the order passed, hence, the direction to refund the earnest money was erroneous. [2026:RJ-JP:2347-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1366/2025] 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and also looked into the aforesaid provisions and find that the aforesaid provisions under Appendix-A is a general Rule to be followed while auctioning the properties to the Municipality. However, we have looked into the auction notice issued by the office of the Municipal Council, Sikar, wherein, the size of the 10 shops put up for auction in Block-B have been reflected as 120 Square Yards, whereas, later on vide letter dated 21.01.2011, the Commissioner has himself mentioned that the size of the shop is 111 Square Yards and demanded the amount to be deposited accordingly by the auction purchaser. Considering the ambiguity, letter was sent by the auction purchaser to get the exact size re-measured whereupon the appellant has cancelled the auction and forfeited the amount. The Learned Single Judge has only directed to refund the earnest money of the writ petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% which in our view, cannot be said to be unjustified. Once the measurement of the plot auctioned is found to be different from what has been projected, the right accrued to an auction purchaser to withdraw his amount. At the same time, the auction which was cancelled by the appellant has not been set aside by the learned Single Judge and therefore, no case for interference is made out, the appeal is misconceived and accordingly dismissed. 5. All pending application(s) also stands disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ GAURAV/6