JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure 7) passed by the respondent No. 5 and order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure 8) and order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent No. 4 and the direction to respondent No. 5 to revive the allotment of the commercial plot No. C-20 situated in Ganganagar, Mawana Road, Meerut as per Clause-11 of the Brochure and Clause “Da” of the agreement dated 1.2.2005. 2. Shortly stating the facts of the case are that the Meerut Development Authority advertised for allotment of commercial plots in various schemes of the Authority on auction cum sale basis. On 28.2.2004 the petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted plot No. C-20 Ganga Nagar Scheme, Mawana Road, Meerut and subsequently an agreement for purchase of the plot on instalment basis was executed between Meerut Development Authority and the petitioner. In the aforesaid agreement it was provided that the cost of the plot is Rs. 10,20,000/- which is to be paid in 8 six monthly instalments starting from 5.10.2004 and ending on 5.4.2008 as per Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It was also provided that for default of payment of regular instalments, the allotment shall be cancelled and the paid money be forfeited. It would further provide in Clause 14 of the Brochure that if an offer is made by the allottee to pay the amount of defaulted instalments within a month from the order of cancellation the allotment shall be revived. The petitioner while depositing the instalments defaulted in payment of two instalments, hence the respondent No. 3 cancelled the allotment of plot and communicated the fact of cancellation of allotment vide letter dated 23/24.8.2006 which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The petitioner on 24.8.2006 made an offer to pay the defaulted amount within a month to the U.P. Sachiv of the respondent No. 3 but no final order was passed on the said offer of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2004 in which a direction was issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to comply the Clause - 11 of their own brochure and directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner made by his representation within 12 weeks. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2004 in which a direction was issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to comply the Clause - 11 of their own brochure and directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner made by his representation within 12 weeks. The petitioner preferred a representation on 9.10.2006 alongwith order of the Hon’ble Court before respondents No. 2 and 3 which is annexure 6 to the writ petition, whereupon on 29.12.2006 respondent No. 3 revived the allotment in favour of the petitioner vide order (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) subject to deposit of twice the amount of rate of the land prevailing at the time of order plus 10% of the cost of land as location charges plus 30% charges towards freehold, water supply sewer etc. and 18% interest payable in eight six monthly instalments. On 20.1.2007 respondent No. 4 has communicated the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). On 15.2.2007 the petitioner made an application before respondent No. 3 praying that the allotment of his plot may be revived on the rate of land prevailing at the time of cancellation (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). The petitioner also made a similar application before respondent No. 5 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). On 9.3.2007 the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in hope of rate revision of his plot. On 9.7.2007 respondent No. 4 intimated the petitioner that by some order dated 16.6.2007 respondent No. 5 has rejected his representations dated 15.2.2007 and 19.2.2007 and has fixed the instalment by increasing the rate of one instalment for Rs. 1,89,420/- to Rs. 2,73,787/- per six months. 3. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit. While denying the contentions raised in the affidavit annexed with the writ petition respondents submitted that the petitioner was defaulter of more than two instalments. The petitioner on the very next day moved an application dated 24.8.2006 for recalling the cancellation order which was under consideration. The representation of the petitioner was decided on 29.12.2006 under order of Hon’ble Court dated 26.9.2006 passed in writ petition No. 53734 of 2006. On 20.11.1999 the Government issued costing Guidelines and vide Clause 14 of the same provides guidelines for imposing charges for reviving the cancelled allotment. The representation of the petitioner was decided on 29.12.2006 under order of Hon’ble Court dated 26.9.2006 passed in writ petition No. 53734 of 2006. On 20.11.1999 the Government issued costing Guidelines and vide Clause 14 of the same provides guidelines for imposing charges for reviving the cancelled allotment. The cancellation was made on account of fault of the allottee and revival will be made either on the then prevailing market rate or on the current rate of scheme whichever is more. It is incorrect that freehold charges @ 30% were charged. It is also stated that 75% of the value of the plots in the scheme was also calculated but the same being less it was not accepted and applied in the order dated 29.12.2006. The representation/application of the petitioner dated 9.10.2006 was decided as per rules and on market rate prevailing for commercial plots on the said date. Since there was some error in the calculation of the amount deposited by the petitioner and interest in the letter dated 20.1.2007, hence the corrected letter dated 9.7.2007 was issued. It was stated that 30% was directed to be deposited after adjustment of entire amount already paid by the petitioner in lump sum and for remaining 70% eight six monthly instalments have been fixed. The restoration has been made as per Government Order dated 20.11.1999 on the then prevailing market value of the commercial plot. It is stated that upto 10.3.2008 the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 5,71,163/-, a copy of the computer calculation is filed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that Rs. 1,89,420/- is the principal amount of instalment and with interest it is shown as Rs. 3,10,648/- to be paid on 10.10.2007 and in place of principal amount it is corrected as Rs. 1,37,404/- and in place of interest as Rs. 1,36,382/- total Rs. 2,73,87/- to be paid on 10.8.2007 as first instalment of eight instalments. Market rate of the commercial plot is twice of the rate of residential plot and therefore residential rate was increased to two times. Hence higher rate was to be applied and market rate was taken into account. It is also stated that 10% location charges for corner plot was added. Since the allotment was cancelled due to default of petitioner, he had to give market rate on the date of revival of the allotment. Hence higher rate was to be applied and market rate was taken into account. It is also stated that 10% location charges for corner plot was added. Since the allotment was cancelled due to default of petitioner, he had to give market rate on the date of revival of the allotment. The petitioner is still defaulter. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner against the contentions raised in the writ petition he denied the averments made in the counter-affidavit and stated that no demand notice was given to the petitioner nor the allotment cancellation order dated 23.8.2006 was ever given to the petitioner and no such documents have been annexed with the counter-affidavit and hence the cancellation order was not in the notice of the petitioner and is denied. The cancellation order was never served upon the petitioner, only a communication regarding the said order was given by respondent No. 2 on the basis of which he immediately applied for recall of the cancellation order on 24.8.2006. Since respondents No. 2 and 5 were not considering the recall of the cancellation order and were planning to take possession of the property of the petitioner and thus he had to file the writ petition. It is apparent that they delayed the decision on recall application deliberately and hence they cannot claim any extra- charges from the petitioner except those provided in Clause 11 of the Brochure. It is further submitted that there is no Government Order dated 20.11.1999 on record and in the Brochure there is no provision that once a allottee defaults in payment of instalment, the casting guidelines of the Government Order dated 20.11.1999 shall be applied to his case and the conditions given in para 11 of the Brochure has become redundant. Therefore the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay charges beyond the scope and ambit of Clause 11 of the Brochure. It is further contended that why the prevailing rate on 9.10.2006 was taken into consideration when Clause 11 of the Brochure did not provide the same which has not been explained by the respondents. Therefore the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay charges beyond the scope and ambit of Clause 11 of the Brochure. It is further contended that why the prevailing rate on 9.10.2006 was taken into consideration when Clause 11 of the Brochure did not provide the same which has not been explained by the respondents. It is further provided that according to Clause 11 of the Brochure if the highest bidder/auction purchaser wants restoration of the cancellation order within one month from its cancellation then he is required to deposit the entire due amount with panel interest and 7% restoration charges of the value of the land and thereafter an order of restoration of his allotment order shall be passed and the remaining cost of the plot shall be payable as per the terms and conditions agreed earlier. 5. From the contentions raised in the accompanying affidavit to the writ petition, in the counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit the main controversy which arises in the present writ petition is whether the parties who have entered into an agreement as per contentions of the petitioner vide Annexure 2 and it is not denied by the respondents whether the parties of the contract or agreement are bound by the terms of the agreement as they were on the date of the execution of agreement i.e. 1.2.2005. Annexure 2 of the writ petition is the agreement executed between the parties. Admittedly the agreement was executed in between Meerut Development Authority and the petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. This fact is admitted by the respondents too. In stipulation ‘Da” it is mentioned that the purchaser shall pay all the dues which he has accepted to pay in its agreement and shall pay them fully and regularly; if the payment is not made within the prescribed period then the purchaser shall pay interest on the due instalments and if there is default in payment of two continuous or more instalments then it will be treated that the agreement has come to an end and the freehold purchaser shall be ejected from the land and premises and the owner shall be entitled to recover the entire amount as arrears of land revenue or any other mode approved by law. That the water connection and electric connection shall also be disconnected and if the settled conditions are fulfilled, then the allotment and possession can be revived. It is mentioned in “Vivaran Pustika” relating to Aawasiya Yojna for agreement to sale by way of auction in clause 2 that if after the due allotment two or more six monthly instalments are not paid in time, then the allotment shall be cancelled and the deposited amount shall be forfeited and if after the receipt of information of cancellation of the allotment of the land the purchaser/highest bidder does not get the cancelled allotment of the land revived then he shall be ousted from the said premises. If the said purchaser/auction bidder within one month of the notice of the cancellation wants revival of the allotment, then he shall repay the entire due amount alongwith panel interest and shall also pay 7% of the value of the land as revival fee. The panel interest has been mentioned in Clause 4 in the aforesaid “Vivran Pustika”. It is mentioned that if the due instalment has been paid at a belated stage in that condition 24% of panel interest will have to be paid. So as per terms of the agreement and the detailed information Booklet with regard to the auction-cum-purchase of the commercial plots in Phase II, the parties executing the agreement are bound by the conditions as disclosed in their Booklet which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It is nowhere stipulated in the agreement (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) on record that the market value or the circle rate which shall from time to time be settled according to the future Government Orders, on such rate which shall be prevailing on the date of order shall be recovered from the purchaser. The question is that when an agreement has been arrived at between the parties then both the parties are bound by the conditions as has been laid down in the agreement or in the information Booklet provided in connection with the plot which was allotted. Hence they cannot exceed or go beyond the conditions and stipulations as provided in the agreement itself as well as in the brochure supplied with the offer. Hence they cannot exceed or go beyond the conditions and stipulations as provided in the agreement itself as well as in the brochure supplied with the offer. Since there is no such stipulation in the agreement itself, so the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition), order dated 20.1.2007(Annexure 8 to the writ petition) and order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) shall have to be considered in the light of the agreement and the Brochure showing the conditions and stipulation. Annexure 7 is the order dated 29.12.2006 in which as per direction of the Hon’ble Court the concerned authority was directed to pass a final order on the representation of the petitioner. It is directed in the aforesaid order that the present commercial value of the disputed plot is Rs. 9020/- per square meter which is higher and hence he has decided to revive the allotment at the rate of Rs. 9020/- per square metre and revive the order of cancellation. The order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) also shows that this order has been passed by the Joint Secretary that revival of the allotment of the land has been made according to the directions of the Government Orders @ Rs. 9020/- and thus it was directed that the remaining amount of Rs. 15,15360/- alongwith 18% interest is to be paid by the petitioner and it is also directed that after the date fixed he will have to give 24% as penal interest and in case of default the allotment shall again be cancelled. Annexure 12 is the letter sent by Joint Secretary to Sri Vinod Kumar stating that 70% due amounting to Rs. 15,15360/- should be paid alongwith 18% interest in the 8 instalments i.e. each instalment of Rs. 2,73, 787/- be deposited on the date fixed in the letter. It is further mentioned that in case of delay in payment of due instalment, 24% panel interest will have to be paid and in case of default of two or more instalments again the allotment shall be cancelled. Thus all these orders indicate that the value of the land has been assessed and revised in accordance with the prevailing Government Orders whereas in the agreement in between the parties there is only a stipulation that after complying with the settled stipulations the order of cancellation shall be revived. Thus all these orders indicate that the value of the land has been assessed and revised in accordance with the prevailing Government Orders whereas in the agreement in between the parties there is only a stipulation that after complying with the settled stipulations the order of cancellation shall be revived. The settled conditions are mentioned in the brochure which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition and in the agreement (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). It is nowhere indicated that rates of the land shall be revised in accordance with the future Government Orders. The stipulation as pointed out above is mentioned in Clause 2 that in case of default if the purchaser offers for revival of the allotment then the entire due amount on the date alongwith penal interest which has been mentioned as 24% plus 7% of the excess value of the land, has to be paid whereupon the allotment order shall stand revived. So as discussed above the orders dated 29.12.2006, 20.1.2007 and 9.7.2007 are not in consonance with the conditions of the agreement (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and also not in consonance with the stipulation given in booklet supplied by the Meerut Development Authority. 6. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he came to know about the cancellation only on 24.8.2006. The original order of cancellation dated 23.8.2006 was never served upon him and he immediately moved an application for revival on the same date which application was kept pending by the respondents and was disposed of only by a mandate issued by the Hon’ble Court. So the delay, if any, was caused by the respondents themselves and hence they cannot charge the prevailing rate as alleged on the belated date of order for which they themselves are responsible. In substance, it comes out that the parties who have entered into an agreement and have disclosed the stipulation for the purchase of commercial plot openly by way of booklet in which terms and the stipulation has been mentioned All the three orders show that these stipulation and the terms of agreement have not been specifically followed. A specific agreement between the parties must be specifically performed and on this account alone all the three orders dated 29.12.2006, 20.1.2007 and 9.7.2007 are liable to be quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. A specific agreement between the parties must be specifically performed and on this account alone all the three orders dated 29.12.2006, 20.1.2007 and 9.7.2007 are liable to be quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed. All the impugned orders dated 29.12.2006, 20.1.2007 and 9.7.2007 are quashed. The respondents are directed to calculate the due amount according to the stipulations mentioned in the agreement and the brochure which are Annexures 2 and 1 respectively to the writ petition within fifteen days and shall allow the petitioner to pay the instalments so calculated in terms of the agreement entered into between them and also in terms of the stipulation as disclosed in the brochure and the rate prevalent on the date of application i.e. 24.8.2006. ————