SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(All) 1281

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DEVI PRASAD SINGH AND ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI (II), JJ.
AHARWAS SINGH @ ATARWAS SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3606 (M/B) of 2012, decided on 12th September, 2014)

Advocates:
Counsel :
D.K. Mishra for the Petitioner; U.N. Mishra, N.C. Mehrotra and Rajesh Singh Chauhan for the Respondents.

Headnote:Allotment—Possession—Non-delivery of—Non-execution of sale-deed—Compensation—Entitlement of—Respondent Authority after making allotment of plot and taking deposit of entire amount from public—Failed to deliver possession and execute sale-deed—Even after a lapse of more than seven years—While keeping money in its accounts and earning interest or utilizing it in other schemes and getting benefits—Escalation of price cannot be attributed to petitioner—Waiting for execution all sale-deed and delivery of possession of plot in question since 2006—Allottee cannot be blamed for delay—Entitled to a plot on the same cost—Entitled to get interest in lieu of compensation. [Paras 2, 7, 8, 21, 27 and 28]

       Result; Petition Allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J.—Heard Sri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.C.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is yet another case in which Lucknow Development Authority, after advertising scheme for allotment of plots in Gomti Nagar Extension Scheme, and after making allotment and taking deposit of the entire amount from the public, has failed to deliver possession and execute the sale-deed even after a lapse of more than seven years, while keeping the money in its accounts and earning interest or utilizing it in other schemes and getting benefits. On account of inaction of the Lucknow Development Authority, the poor allottee was running from pillar to post for getting possession of the plot while the Lucknow Development Authority, on one pretext or other, is delaying or refusing the delivery of possession to the allottee.

3. As per factual matrix of the case, petitioner applied for a plot in Gomti Nagar Extension on 18.5.2004 and deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the shape of demand draft in favour of Secretary of the Lucknow Development Authority. Petitioner was allotted a plot in Sector-6 of Gomti Nagar Extension measuring 115.50 Sq. Mtrs. bearing property No. 6/315 through lottery system on 28.2.2005. Allotment letter was dispatched only on paper as it never reached the petitioner as alleged by him. However, the petitioner after being aware of the allotment of plot in his favour, deposited the 3 installments at the tune of Rs. 1,71,170/- on 21.10.2005. 4th, 5th,6th installments of Rs. 50,935/- each was deposited on 30.11.2005, 27.7.2006 and 31.7.2006 respectively. Petitioner deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- in advance on 18.12.2006. An amount of Rs. 2,805/- was also deposited same day on account of the difference of the installment. Last installment was due on 28.2.2007, but the same was paid in advance on 18.12.2006. Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of payment of the entire amount neither the Lucknow Development Authority transferred possession of the land and nor executed the sale-deed even after lapse of more than six years. The Lucknow Development Authority is now taking stand that there is a dispute with regard to possession in their favour in Sector 6 of the scheme. Later on, vide application dated 18.10.2011 petitioner requested to the Lucknow Development Authority that if there is some dispute regarding land of Sector 6 he may be allotted another other plot in Sector-3, 4 or 5 of the same Scheme measuring same area and if same area is not available any bigger vacant plot may be allotted and he is ready to pay the difference existing in the year 2012. Petitioner again requested the officers of the Lucknow Development Authority on 5.5.2012 for the same, but he did not receive any reply or assurance. By filing the petition, the petitioner has prayed that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the opposite parties to handover the possession of plot No. 315, type D, situated in Sector No. 6, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow. In the alternative, it was also prayed that writ order or direction be issued in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give possession of another plot in the same scheme in Sector No. 3, 4 or 5 in the Gomti Nagar Extension equal to the plot already allotted to him and if a bigger plot was available, then that plot be allotted and possession be handed over to the petitioner who is ready to pay the difference of amount existing in the year 2014.

4. Counter-affidavit by Authority was filed and it was averred that on account of resentment and strong opposition of the villagers of the area, development work could not be started and therefore the authority could not hand over the possession of plot allotted to the petitioner and due to this, sale-deed could not be executed. The Lucknow Development Authority have at present no alternative land therefore the allotted plot of the petitioner could not be adjusted at any o


























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top