Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2391 (ALL)

Lal Chandra Nathani v. State of U. P.

2016-07-11

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Lal Chandra Nathani is before this Court with prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the auction notice dated 31.5.2016 published in newspaper "Hindustan" by Kanpur Development Authority in respect of plot no.K-7, M.I.G. 180 sq. meters. He has further prayed for direction commanding the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of plot in question and not to take any coercive steps against him. 2. Record in question reflects that the petitioner was allotted MIG Plot No.7 area 180 sq. meters situated in Sector-K, World Bank Barra, Kanpur Nagar by the Kanpur Development Authority (in short, "KDA") on 13.8.1985. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said allotment, the petitioner regularly deposited the instalments till the year 1995 and thereafter he had committed defaults in payment of instalments as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter. 3. At present, grievance of the petitioner is that no notice or show cause was ever issued to the petitioner for wilful default in payment of instalments till August, 2015. The entire proceeding, which has been initiated against the petitioner, is against the principle of natural justice and as such, this Court must come to rescue and reprieve to the petitioner. 4. Shri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that in the year 2010 the KDA floated the OTS Scheme and as per OTS demand note of KDA, the petitioner had deposited Rs.42,960/- on 14.6.2010 and another amount of Rs.43,000/- on 19.6.2010 within time. It has been contended that once as per the demand of KDA the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount under the OTS, then there was no occasion for the KDA to cancel the allotment of the plot in question and that too without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. 5. In this background, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the KDA on the instructions so received submits that in terms of the allotment letter in question, admittedly the petitioner had not deposited the entire amount and he did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment. 5. In this background, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the KDA on the instructions so received submits that in terms of the allotment letter in question, admittedly the petitioner had not deposited the entire amount and he did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment. Consequently, the KDA through registered notice dated 16.4.2010 had informed to the petitioner for payment of the balance amount and thereafter the publication was also made in the newspaper on 25.4.2010 to the extent that in case the amount in question is not deposited within time, the KDA would proceed to cancel the said allotment. He further apprised to the Court that inspite of sufficient notice at no point of time the petitioner has proceeded to respond and finally the Vice Chairman vide order dated 18.6.2010 had proceeded to cancel the said allotment. He further apprised to the Court that in terms of the OTS Scheme 2002 at no point of time the petitioner has proceeded to apply the same on the prescribed format and whatever calculation charge under the alleged OTS has been appended alongwith the writ petition, the said calculation has never been done by the KDA and as such whatever amount deposited by the petitioner was on his own accord and once the cancellation order dated 18.6.2010 is not under challenge, no reprieve can be accorded to the petitioner. 6. This is admitted situation that the allotment letter dated 13.8.1985 was issued in favour of the petitioner and in terms of the said allotment the petitioner had not deposited the required amount. The KDA has also proceeded to issue notice on 16.4.2010 through registered post and thereafter the KDA had also made publication in the newspaper on 25.4.2010 but inspite of sufficient notice at no point of time the petitioner himself has responded to the said notice and certain amount has been deposited as per his own accord. It is relevant to indicate that even in that circumstances, the KDA has proceeded to inform to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.2015 that in case the petitioner was willing to deposit the entire amount as per rules and regulations, the plot in question can be restored in his favour. It is relevant to indicate that even in that circumstances, the KDA has proceeded to inform to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.2015 that in case the petitioner was willing to deposit the entire amount as per rules and regulations, the plot in question can be restored in his favour. Inspite of the said notice appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioner had not proceeded to approach to the authority concerned in response to the said letter and at this stage, the petitioner is asking that the respondent authorities may be directed not to auction the property in question. 7. Confronted with this situation, Shri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the notice dated 26.11.2015 the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount in question and as such, this Court should rescue and reprieve to the petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the KDA submits that it is the endeavour of the KDA to ensure that the petitioner may deposit the entire amount as on today in terms of the policy of the KDA and in case he deposits the entire amount as on today, the competent authority may consider for deferment of the auction of the property in question. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclining to interfere with the impugned notice. 10. Since the petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount as on today, we direct the KDA to calculate the entire liability in accordance with law within two days'. In case the petitioner deposits the entire amount as has been asked for, on or before the date fixed for auction of the property in question, only then the auction can be deferred. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.