Petitioners cannot challenge allotment amounts after acquiescing to the allotment orders and making partial payments, as they were unauthorized occupants without valid claims.

JUDGMENT :

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.

(Ref:- Civil Misc. Recall Application No. 03 Of 2023)

1. Petitioners, by means of the instant recall application, have sought recall of the order dated 20th November, 2023 passed by this Court in the present writ petition. It is contended that correct facts have not been noticed while disposing of the writ petition and the petitioners’ grievance has not been adverted to.

2. The petitioners have claimed following reliefs in the present writ petition:-

“(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities not to charge the amount as mentioned in allotment letters for the quarters in Adarsh Colony Haiza Hospital, Allahpur, Prayagraj (Annexure No.10 to the writ petition).

(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to abide by their own policy with respect to circle rate of Adarsh Colony, Haiza Hospital, Allahpur, Prayagraj (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition).

(III) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners dated 19.08.2023 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition).

(IV) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper to meed the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

(V) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.”

3. This Court had disposed of the writ petition vide following orders dated 20.11.2023:-

“Petitioners appeared to have been allotted a house by the respondent Nagar Nigam under some policy of the Government to relocate the displaced persons. It is asserted by the petitioners that they are living in the premises for last more than 20 years and have also paid the entire consideration warranted to be deposited by them for execution of transfer deed. It is urged that the authorities are not executing transfer deed and are acting arbitrarily in the matter.

Sri Arun Kumar, appearing for the Nagar Nigam states that petitioners have been informed of the dues payable by them, and in the event they deposit the same, their claim for execution of transfer deed would be considered as per law.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that the amount due and payable towards the property in question has already been deposited.

Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to represent their grievance before respondent no.2, annexing all relevant materials in support of their claim, alongwith a certified copy of this order, within two weeks from today. The second respondent shall get the petitioners' claim examined, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate reasoned order, within a further period of two months, thereafter. All consequential action shall be taken in terms of such determination, without further loss of time.

With the above observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.”

4. It is asserted that the authorities have arbitrarily determined the amount payable vide allotment order (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), inasmuch as the circle rate of area has been determined on a higher rate. It is also urged that the recital in the first paragraph of the order dated 20.11.2023 that petitioners have deposited the entire consideration for execution of transfer deed is factually incorrect and apparently facts of a different case are inadvertently mentioned in the order dated 20.11.2023.

5. We have heard Sri Abhishek Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and have perused the material on records.

6. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of applicants-petitioners, certain background facts require narration at the outset.

7. Petitioners allege that under a scheme sponsored by the State Governm