Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 483 (UTT)

Vishal v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-08-23

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : By means of instant petition, the petitioners seek direction that the respondents authorities may be directed to handover the ownership certificate of the shops, which were allotted to the petitioners. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1981, the State of Uttar Pradesh had launched a Special Component Plan (“the Plan”) for the welfare of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes for their upliftment. Under the plan, some small shops were to be constructed for their allotment to the members. 50% cost of the construction was to be paid by the prospective allottee in equal instalments, where as 50% cost was to be borne by the State Government. All the petitioners were allotted shops under the plan. An agreement was also executed between the petitioners and the respondent no.7. According to the petitioners, they have already repaid all the instalments. They become owner because the agreement was under Hire Purchase System But, it is the grievance of the petitioners that the ownership certificate has not been given by the respondents to them. 4. On behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 counter affidavits have been filed. Factual aspects are not denied. In their counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the respondent no.4, the District Social Welfare Officer has averred that the shops have been allotted under the plan to the petitioners, but there has been no such conditions recorded in the agreement that the allottees shall be made owners of the shops. In para 4 of his counter affidavit, the respondent no.4 has stated that the petitioners are making wrong interpretation of the conditions of the allotment. The allotment/licence issued in favour of the petitioners is subject to the conditions 3 and 4 in the agreement. It is also the case of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioners are running their shops and department is not evicting them. The same District Social Welfare Officer, who is the respondent no.4 has again filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and reiterated the factual position. 5. In their counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have also admitted the factual position. The same District Social Welfare Officer, who is the respondent no.4 has again filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 and reiterated the factual position. 5. In their counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have also admitted the factual position. According to them, after making the allotment and handing over possession, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 never interfered or disturbed the occupation and possession of the petitioners over the shops in question, which are presently under the supervision and monitoring of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 so as to ensure the compliance of the conditions of the allotment and Government Order on this subject. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that under the Government Orders, the allotment was to be done on hire purchase basis and an agreement was executed between the parties in the year 1983. Clause 1 of it, categorically records that the allotment is as per hire purchase system. It is argued that the petitioners have already paid all the instalments and they have become owner of the shops allotted to them. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioners have not been given any ownership certificate, they find it difficult to get loan on the shop. They also find it difficult to carry out any maintenance work. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 would submit that allotment has been made to the petitioners subject to condition nos. 3 and 4 of the agreement of allotment, which stipulates that the allottee shall not sell or let out the shops to any other person ever and whenever the allottee does not find it useful for running the business, he would return the shop to the department. It is argued that the department is not interfering with the possession of the petitioners or in their business. The allotment is subject to the conditions and subject to those conditions, the petitioners are owners of the shops. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 7 & 8 also adopts the arguments as, advanced on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of the respondents are interfering with their possession or creating any hurdle in running their business. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 7 & 8 also adopts the arguments as, advanced on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that any of the respondents are interfering with their possession or creating any hurdle in running their business. What the petitioners want is that they should be given ownership of shop. The agreement that has been executed between the parties has been filed as Annexure 7, which is an agreement entered into between the father of the petitioner no.1 with the department. 10. It is true that Clause 1 records that it is as per hire purchase system. Clause 7 of this agreement is the deeming provision. According to it, once the instalments are paid, the allottee shall be deemed to be the owner of the allotted shop subject to the condition nos. 3 and 4. They are as follows:- (3) The allottee shall not be entitled to sell or lease out the shop to any other person and he will never do it. (4) Whenever the allottee is not in the requirement of the shop, he shall return it to the department. 11. In view of this agreement, there is no question of ownership certificate. A statement has been given by the respondents that the petitioners have already paid all the instalments. By operation of Clause 7 of the agreement, all the petitioners are owners of the shops allotted to them subject to condition nos. 3 and 4; they cannot sell, they cannot rent it out to anyone and further if they do not need it, they would return it to the department. 12. In fact, this Court does not see any reason as to why instant petition has been filed. As stated, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have ever been interfered with by the respondents authorities. If the petitioners intend to take loan on the shop, they can very well apply for it claiming themselves to be the owners of the shop subject to condition nos. 3 and 4 of the agreement, which were executed between the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that as such no direction is required to be given to the respondents authorities to transfer any ownership certificate. 3 and 4 of the agreement, which were executed between the predecessor in interest of the petitioners. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that as such no direction is required to be given to the respondents authorities to transfer any ownership certificate. 14. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.