NARHARI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common facts and question of law are involved in these petitions viz. W.P.(C) No. 5589 of 2008, 6176 of 2008 and (C)6658 of 2008, thus, these petitions are being considered and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In these petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the concerned officers to register the lease-cum-sale deed executed between the respondent No. 7, Bhilai Steel Plant (for short 'the BSP') in favour of the respective petitioners and also a direction to the respondent No. 1 to 4/State not to demand stamp duty, lease rent and premium on the houses in which the petitioners are residing as owners of the same.

(3.) Case of the petitioners are that the petitioners were the employees of the respondent/BSP. The respondent/BSP launched a scheme namely Amdi Housing Scheme with the financial assistance of Housing and Urban Development Corporation (for short 'the HUDCO'). In pursuance of the said scheme, 2000 houses were constructed involving a total expenditure of Rs. 6.39 crores including contribution made by the employees also. After construction of the houses, the same were allotted to the employees in terms of the scheme. The sale deed was executed for conveying the right, title and interest in favour of the allottee for a period of 99 years on payment of premium, annual ground rent. It was provided under the scheme that the houses could be transferred after a period of five years. The allotment was on the basis of hire-purchase agreement. The dispute arose when the BSP was not willing to execute the lease deed in favour of the members of the society i.e. the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the Amdi (HUDCO) Kalyan Evam Vikas Samiti preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 2585/2002. In the said petition, it was contended that initially, 25 lease agreement entered into between the management of the BSP and the employees, were registered by the Sub Registrar, Durg, but thereafter, when some of the allottee employees submitted lease agreements for registration, the Sub Registrar refused to register the lease agreement stating that he had verbal direction from the Collector, Durg, not to register the lease agreement in respect of Amdi Housing Society.