Ajit Kumar Maurya v. Lucknow Development Authority and others
2010-04-21
PRADEEP KANT, SHABIHUL HASNAIN
body2010
DigiLaw.ai
Pradeep Kant And Shabihul Hasnain, JJ. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Sandeep Dixit and Sri Shobhit Mohan Shukla for the respondents. 2. With the consent of the parties' counsel, the petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are the purchasers of commercial plot (CP-8) at Sitapur Road and Jankipuram Extension. They were allotted Registration No. 2778137. The allotment was made on 1.4.06. 4. The petitioners had not only deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.77,85,703/-, but the sale deed has also been executed by the Lucknow Development Authority on 5.12.09. It appears that despite the aforesaid auction and the sale deed being executed after depositing the amount, the actual possession of the aforesaid plot has not been delivered till date, which gave them a grievance for which this petition has been filed. Copies of the application moved before the Lucknow Development Authority, which have been annexed as Annexure nos. 5, 6 and 7 to the writ petition indicate that some portion of the plot is in the occupation of the adjacent plot owners, which according to the petitioners is an encroachment. 5. The petitioners' submission is that once the auction has been held and sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioners, there cannot be any reason for the Lucknow Development Authority not to deliver the vacant physical possession of the plot in question. Needless to reiterate that when the Lucknow Development Authority or for that matter, any such authority like Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, allots either by way of auction or otherwise, any plot or any residential house or for that matter any complex or any shop, on completion of all the formalities, viz. execution of sale deed/transfer deed, the obligation rests upon such authority, namely, the Lucknow Development Authority and the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad to hand over the vacant possession to the person in whose favour the allotment has been made and sale deed has been executed. It can be taken note of that the properties of Lucknow Development Authority or such authorities including the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad lay unattended and, therefore, at times they are occupied by the persons, who are not authorized to occupy it and some times by antisocial elements.
It can be taken note of that the properties of Lucknow Development Authority or such authorities including the Avas Evam Vikas Parishad lay unattended and, therefore, at times they are occupied by the persons, who are not authorized to occupy it and some times by antisocial elements. It also happens that if the adjacent plots are lying vacant for some time, deliberately or may be under some bona fide belief, it is encroached upon by the owner of adjacent plots. 6. All these disputes give a cause of action to the parties to come to the Court to redress such wrongs. 7. This Court has repeatedly observed that the obligation to hand over vacant possession to the person in whose favour transfer is effected, lies upon the authority concerned. 8. In the instant case also, the Lucknow Development Authority appears to have not taken any steps for delivery of possession to the petitioners, though they have deposited the entire amount long back. 9. We, under the circumstances, direct that the petitioners shall make a representation to the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority raising all their grievance and since they say that the plot owner of CP-6 and CP-7 have encroached upon their plot, they shall also be given notice by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority while considering the aforesaid representation. 10. The Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority shall take appropriate action for handing over the vacant possession over the area for which the sale deed has been executed, if there is no other legal impediment. 11. After giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, the representation shall be decided within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith a certified copy of this order. 12. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.