Smt. Lalita Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 4179 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2591 of 2008
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Lalita Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- L.K. Pandey,Indevar Pandey,Shailendra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Sharma,Atul Mehra,S.K. Om,V.P.Mathur
 

 
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. 

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

(Delivered By Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Om, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Agra Development Authority and Shri V.P. Mathur, Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order No. 279/D/AE (P) 06-07 dated 29.5.2006 passed by respondent no. 5 (Annexure No.-9 to this writ petition);

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5 to give the possession over the plot No. A-103 M.I.G. Shastripuram Yojna to petitioner;

c) Issue any other suitable and proper order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

d) Award the cost of the writ petition."

3. It has been stated in the petition that on the application dated 20.3.1991 given before the respondent no 3 ADA, Agra, the respondent no 5 informed the petitioner that MIG plot has been reserved in her name requiring her to deposit Rs. 8685/- in bank as reservation charges in 30 days which was deposited by her on 26.9.1991 in OBC Bank, Agra. She was informed that plot no. A-103 has been allotted by lottery system dated 20.3.1993 asking her to deposit Rs. 17338/-within 15 days and the same was deposited on 28.7.1993 in OBC Bank, Agra. Including last deposit of 10000/- rupees on 10.5.2007, she has deposited total Rs. 44678/- against total cost of Rs. 86680/-.

4. The petitioner asked for possession by sending letter on 12.9.2005, 3.10.2005 and 18.7.2007 to respondent no. 4. She was for the first time informed by respondent no. 5 by letter dated 11.9.2007 that the said allotment has been canceled by the prescribed authority vide order no. 279/D/AE(p)06-07 dated 29.5.2006 and she can get the amount deposited. The act of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against law. It was settled that before possession Rs. 34678/- will be deposited by her and the remaining amount of Rs. 44678/- was to be deposited after taking possession. Before canceling the allotment, no information or show cause notice was given to her. She is ready to pay entire amount at a time and she is entitled for the possession over the plot. She is also entitled for compensation. Her apprehension is that the respondents are inclined to allot her plot to respondent no. 7 Autar singh.

5. Counter and supplementary counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits have been filed from both sides.

6. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the ADA, Agra has submitted that the petitioner has submitted the Brochure of the Housing Scheme of 2005-2006 whereas she was alloted plot in question in the year 1993 and the Housing Scheme of 1991-92 is applicable to her allotment. Both the Brochures have been annexed. It is pertinent to mention that the allotment of petitioner is to be governed according to terms and condition as provided in the Brochure of the Housing Scheme of 1991-92.

7. Admittedly, petitioner was allotted MIG plot no. A-103 in Shastripuram, Phase-A and allotment letter dated 13.7.1993 was issued to her. Again, letter no. 3290/D/PS/1995 was sent to her to obtain possession after completing entire formalities latest by 1.7.1995, otherwise, her allotment would be liable to be canceled. The ADA, Agra has filed the photo-estate copy of the letter in support by which the correctness of this fact is established. Further, a public notice was also issued in several newspapers informing about the camp of ADA, Agra from 13.6.1996 to 15.6.1996 from 11AM to 4PM requesting the allottees to complete all the formalities of possession and even if the possession is not obtained, their installments in respect of their plots would be payable from 1 July, 1996 in case of quarterly installments and from 1 October, 1996 in case of half yearly installments. The photo-estate copy of public notice published in Amar Ujala dated 13.6.1996 has been submitted to establish this fact.

8. But despite the letter so sent and public notice so published in newspapers, the petitioner did not take any step to complete the formalities. The learned counsel to the ADA has referred to Para 60 of the Brochure 1991-1992 which provides that the allotee will have to deposit, within 30 days, reservation charge including registration charges which shall be 20% of total cost. After issuance of allotment letter, within 30 days, the allottee was to deposit 20% of total cost and remaining amount was required to be deposited in quarterly and half yearly installments and in failing to deposit two installments with interest, the allotment would be liable to be canceled. In Para 61, it has been stipulated that, within a month from the date of issuance of letter of possession, the allotee will have to obtain possession after making payment of total outstanding amount. It has been further provided that on application of the allotee, the Vice Chairman may grant additional time for payment of outstanding amount subject to interest at the rate of 5% with additional monthly charges for different classes at fixed rate against Choukidari fees. If possession is not obtained in due time or within enhanced period so granted by Vice Chairman, the allotment would be liable to be canceled.

9. It is admitted case of petitioner that the total cost of plot has been Rs. 86680/- and against it Rs. 34678/- was deposited by her till 25.9.1993 and Rs 10000/- was deposited after cancellation of allotment on 10.5.2007. Despite letter of possession and public notice issued/published in newspapers, she did not complete necessary formalities nor deposited the outstanding amount or any of the installments as per terms and conditions of allotment. Therefore, the allotment of the petitioner was canceled on 29.5.2006.

10. In supplementary counter affidavit, the petitioner has submitted that even though she did not receive the alleged notices of the ADA Agra, since she had already deposited the requisite amount, hence her allotment could not be canceled. She has referred to Para 32 of the Brochure 2005-2006 and has submitted that the remaining installments were payable after delivery of possession to her which was not given to her despite several notices given by her to ADA for giving possession.

11. We went through both the Brochures and we find that the terms and conditions in Brochure 1991-92 which governs the allotment of petitioner requires payment of installments before delivery of possession and not after delivery of possession as provided in Brochure 2005-6. Clearly, even after expiry of more than 10 years and despite notice given to her and despite public notice in newspapers, she did not deposit any amount. The deposit of Rs. 10000/- in 2007 has no bearing nor gives any advantage to the petitioner as her allotment was already canceled before the deposit.

12. The respondents have filed counter affidavit stating that the disputed plot has been allotted to respondent no.7 on 30.5.2006. In support allotment order has been filed and it has been stated that he is not an employee of ADA, Agra. As such, third party interest has been already created much before filing of this petition.

13. In view of above facts and discussion, we find that the petitioner herself is defaulter in making payment of installments and outstanding amount and there is no force in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

Dated: 06.5.2019

RCT/-

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Shashi Kant Gupta, J.)