Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3572 (ALL)

ANURAG KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-11-24

PRADEEP KANT, RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2009
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B.K. Singh, Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla holding brief of Sri D.K. Upadhyaya for the LDA and Sri T.J.S. Makkar for the State. 2. The petitioner, in a public auction held by the LDA on 10.3.05 was allotted commercial plot No. 107 (C.P. No. 107) on 7.4.05. The petitioner was required to deposit the total money by 31.3.06. The estimated cost of the property was Rs. 12,84,000/-. The petitioner deposited the total amount of Rs. 13,63,514/- as per allotment letter on 24.3.06. 3. A letter was sent from the Property Section to the Engineering Section for preparation of lease plan on 24.3.06. The petitioner since then has been making request for registry, but neither the registry has been made nor the possession has been given. 4. Under the terms of the auction and in particular Clause 12 of the auction notice, it was provided that if the area for which the auction is being held is found in excess, the bidder shall pay the additional amount towards such an excess area at the reserved price, as might have been prescribed by the LDA or at the rate, on which the bid has been accepted, whichever is higher. Though the money was deposited by the petitioner in March, 2006 and the request for preparation of lease plan was made on 24.3.06 itself, but the same was prepared on 15.12.08, a communication of which, was made to the petitioner only on 24.2.09. In this lease plan, it was stated that the area of plot was in excess to the extent of 99.4 sq. mt. i.e. it was 299.4 sq. mt. as against the area auctioned, namely, 200 sq. mt. The respondents directed the petitioner to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 13,12,080/-, but the petitioner deposited only an amount of Rs. 6,38,148/- and therefore, the demand still subsists. 5. On 24.2.09, the LDA demanded a total amount of Rs. 25,96,080/- and the petitioner responded by making a representation that he is prepared to make payment in terms of Clause 12 of the terms and conditions of allotment and, therefore, he deposited an amount of Rs. 6,38,148/-, but on that very date i.e. on 21.5.09, the respondents demanded Rs. 13,80,938/- as cost of plot and Rs. 3,15,030/- as other charges. 6. 6,38,148/-, but on that very date i.e. on 21.5.09, the respondents demanded Rs. 13,80,938/- as cost of plot and Rs. 3,15,030/- as other charges. 6. The petitioner deposited 12% free hold charges on 30.5.09 and then on 27.5.09, he wrote a letter to the Vice-Chairman, LDA stating example of two cases with respect to commercial plot Nos. 95 and 98 that where the excess land was transferred at the old rates, as per the terms and conditions and, therefore, the petitioner be allowed to deposit the amount as per Clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the allotment. 7. On 22.6.09, the LDA took a decision that the petitioner must deposit interest after 90 days grace period from the date of allotment and refused to execute the sale-deed till then. 8. Assailing the aforesaid demand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision either under the Rules nor there was any such term and condition in the auction notice or a tender condition that on delayed payment of the price of the land, which was in excess to the auctioned land, any interest would be charged on such price of additional amount. 9. Clause 12 of the conditions of allotment, which is binding between the parties, provided that in case the area of the land auctioned is found to be more than the area which is notified for being auctioned, then that excess land can be transferred to the auction purchaser, namely, who is the highest bidder, but the rate of such land would be at the rate of reserved price or at the rate of the highest bid, whichever is higher. 10. The area of the present plot, which was auctioned was 200 sq. mt., though it was found to be in excess by 99.4 sq. mt. The petitioner prayed for transfer of the aforesaid area to him and thus was entitled for having the same as per Clause 12 of the conditions of allotment. 11. The lease plan itself was delayed by the department, which should have been prepared in the year 2006 itself, but the LDA took its own time and prepared it on 15.12.08 and then communicated the same to the petitioner in February, 2009. 12. The petitioner cannot be faulted for any such delay in preparing the lease plan. 13. 11. The lease plan itself was delayed by the department, which should have been prepared in the year 2006 itself, but the LDA took its own time and prepared it on 15.12.08 and then communicated the same to the petitioner in February, 2009. 12. The petitioner cannot be faulted for any such delay in preparing the lease plan. 13. Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel for the LDA could not show any rule, regulation or terms and conditions of auction, where on any such additional price of additional land, any interest would be charged. 14. Under the circumstances, the demand of interest over the price of the additional land, cannot be sustained. 15. We, therefore, quash the decision dated 22.6.09 and the demand letter dated 24.7.09, by means of which, the interest has been asked to be paid by the petitioner for the price towards the additional land. 16. The petitioner shall deposit the amount, if any, remains to be paid in terms of Clause 12 of the conditions of allotment and nothing beyond that. In case the petitioner has already deposited the amount, the LDA shall execute the sale-deed and complete the formalities without any further delay. 17. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ————