Smt. Reeta Agarwal vs Lucknow Development Authority ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 6412 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
 
Lucknow Bench Lucknow
 

 
***********
 

 
A.F.R.
 

 
Court No. - 27
 

 
1.	Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11136 of 2011
 
	Petitioner :- Smt. Reeta Agarwal
 
	Respondent :- Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Tis Chairman And 	Ors.
 
	Petitioner Counsel :- Agendra Sinha
 
	Respondent Counsel :- Abhishek Pandey, Rajesh Singh Chauhan
 
AND
 
2.	Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11143 of 2011
 
	Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Agarwal W/O Rajesh Agarwal
 
	Respondent :- L.D.A. Through Its Vice Chairman Gomti Nagar Lko. & 	Ors.
 
	Petitioner Counsel :- Agendra Sinha
 
	Respondent Counsel :- Abhishek Pandey,Rajesh Singh Chauhan
 

 

 
Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.

1.Heard Sri Agendra Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2.Affidavits have been exchanged. In both these writ petitions common question of fact and law are involved hence, with the consent of parties counsel, we proceed to decide at the admission stage by the present common judgment.

3.The petitioners were allotted plots in Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, bearing Plot No.4/223-G, measuring 93.75 sq. m. and Plot No.4/223-E, Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, measuring 116.25 sq. m., The sale-deed was executed by the respondent L.D.A., in favour of the petitioners on 26.4.1996. The possession letter was also issued to the petitioners on 16.7.1996 and physical possession to the petitioner was handed over.

4.After having possession of the plots in question, the petitioners submitted their plan for sanction of map for construction of house. At this stage, they were informed that the original plots have been converted to park in terms of layout plan. Hence alternative plots were provided to them in Gomti Nagar Extension-I as Plot No.1/1680 and 1/672. After allotting plots in Gomti Nagar Extension-I, the L.D.A., asked the petitioners to pay the amount with regard to stamp duty for the execution of the sale-deed. In pursuance of demand raised by the respondents, the petitioners raised protest and submitted that since earlier sale-deed was executed with regard to plots in Vishal Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, and in lieu thereof, stamp was purchased now, it is not open to respondents to ask for additional charges while allotting new plots. The sum and substance of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners suffered for their no fault. According to petitioners counsel, the petitioners are bona fide purchaser of the plots in question and after completing necessary formalities, they have paid stamp duty and sale-deed was executed with regard to earlier plots by the respondent LDA, Lucknow.

5.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners should not suffer for any fault committed by the respondents. For any lapse on the part of LDA, it is for themselves to bear the loss and also pay compensation to the petitioner for mental pain and agony and loss caused on account of serious mal-practices and negligence on the part of the respondents.

6.On behalf of the LDA, it has been submitted by Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, that the area in question where the petitioners were allotted plots, was a park and it could not have been allotted to the petitioner. He further submits that LDA has taken action against the officers concerned who has allotted the plot to the petitioners at an area which was a park in terms of layout plan.

7.After considering the argument of parties, it appears that there is nothing on record to indicate that allocation of plot was a collusive act between the petitioners and the officers of the LDA. The petitioners are bona fide purchaser and have applied for allotment of plot in terms of advertisement of LDA and it was the officers of the LDA who have allotted plots not only to petitioners but to several other persons in pursuance to advertisement.

8.What are the reasons behind an allotment of plots at the place which was earmarked for park that too, after advertisement is a question which may be adjudicated by the LDA but for that, the petitioners cannot be held responsible and to bear loss in terms of money by making payment with regard to expenses which is likely to incur, after allocation of new plots.

9.While deciding a Writ Petition No.281 (M/B) of 1997 and Writ Petition No.1708 (M/B) of 1996 together, by the judgment and order dated 21.10.2011, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member, has settled law that in case citizens suffer for no fault on their part, then whatever loss may be, the cost shall be borne by the LDA itself. In such a situation, the allottee shall also be entitled for interest with regard to deposits made by them for allotment of plot in case the same is not delivered within three months from the date of deposit of entire cost. The relevant portion of the said judgment (supra) are reproduced as under:

104. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is social abhorring and legally impermissible. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance as well as work culture in system. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. The matters which require immediate attention, should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious, arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by the State authorities or its instrumentalities, the forum must be provided in the department itself to hear the grievances and take a decision to redress the public grievance. In a welfare State, there should be immediate attention to public grievance and in case some injury is caused, the Government and its instrumentalities should not hesitate to compensate the sufferer and punish the wrong doer.

105. The individual welfare as well as the welfare of the society should be balanced and persons should not be compelled to knock the doors of the Courts or tribunals more so, when it is cumbersome process to approach the Courts for payment of compensation subject to payment of Court fee or lawyer's fees with regard to misfeasance by public authorities.

106. Ubi jus ibi remedium does not mean only the statutory remedy in the form of tribunal or court. The Government should act upon to provide a forum for the grant of compensation or redressal of grievance within its own hierarchy of system.

XX XX XX XX

109. The spirit of Section 41 of the Act casts duty on the Statement to secure the public interest by issuing appropriate guidelines or taking policy decision for the effective implementation of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

It is vehemently argued by Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government often uses its power to secure individual interest for extraneous reasons. It is further submitted that the development authorities in the State of U.P., are not discharging their obligations fairly and peoples are running from pillar to post for allotment of plots and land even after depositing entire cost. Several matters are kept pending for one or the other reasons. Though the L.D.A., and alike bodies charge interest on account of delayed payment of dues but no interest or compensation is paid to allottees for inaction or delayed action on the part of the development authorities. The case in hand, affirms the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Other instances are cited but in absence of pleadings, we may not record.

110. However, keeping in view the startling revelation and plight of peoples like the present one, facing high handedness imparted by the development authorities, it shall be appropriate that to secure public interest, the Government may be directed to consider to create appropriate post or forum in development authorities, and there should be an officer having been authorised to deal with the public grievances and pay damages or compensation or take decision with regard to payment of interest in case the land or plot is not delivered immediately after deposit of cost by the allottees. Ordinarily in case after deposit of cost of plot or land, if possession is not delivered within three weeks consumers must be paid interest."

10.The present case squarely covers by the judgment of Ganesh Prasad (supra). The petitioners are not liable to pay dues with regard to stamp duty. It was the fault on the part of the officers of LDA who allocated plots to the petitioners in the area which was earmarked for the park. Action has been taken against the officers who have committed wrong by allocating the plots but that is not sufficient. Whatever cost is incurred in execution of fresh sale-deed, that should be recovered from the officers who have committed fault in allocating the plots to the petitioners in the area earmarked for park. Apart from the cost of stamp duty, the petitioners shall also be entitled for interest immediately after three months from the date of deposit of cost of plots in terms of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ganesh Prasad (supra).

11.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to execute the sale-deed with regard to new plots allocated by them to the petitioners and pay cost of stamp duty incurred in executing the sale-deed. The petitioners shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 8% from the LDA, Lucknow, immediately after three months when they deposited the cost in respect of the earlier plots till the delivery of possession in pursuance of the sale-deed executed with regard to new plots. The cost of stamp duty as well as the interest to be paid by LDA, shall be recoverable after due inquiry in accordance with law from the persons who committed fault while allocating the plots to the petitioners in the year 1996.

12.The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs.

[Justice S.C. Chaurasia] [Justice Devi Prasad Singh]

Order Date :- 9.12.2011

Rajneesh AR-PS)