VIJAYA NAHATA Vs. RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 10.11.1994 passed by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Appeal No.22-A/94 affirming the judgment & decree dated 14.8.92 passed by the Third Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.69A/88 whereby learned Third Civil Judge Class-II has granted degree of alternate relief of return of money.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal as per pleading of the parties is that respondent No.1-Raipur Development Authority has invited applications for allotment of the lands for shops under Devendra Nagar Wholesale Cloth Market Scheme No.32. The appellant applied for such allotment of plot vide her application dated 27.6.1978 and has deposited a sum of Rs.500/- towards registration fee. On 5.5.1981, respondent No.1 had issued one letter of proposed for allotment of plot No.G-8, area 785 Sq.ft. on payment of total Rs.7350/- after deducting Rs.500/- as registration fee. The appellant has deposited Rs.7350/- on 5.6.1981. The appellant/plaintiff severally requested to respondent No.1 for registration of plot and delivery of possession, but same was not replied by respondent No.1 till 1988. The appellant was ready and willing to perform her part, but respondent No.1 has failed to perform its part. Suit for specific performance for allotment of plot and possession was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. During the course of pendency of the suit, the appellant came to know that respondent No.1 has illegally allotted the suit plot to respondent No.2, then by subsequent amendment, the appellant has impleaded respondent No.2 as party respondent/defendant. Respondent No.1 has denied adverse allegation of the plaint and specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the proposal. She failed to get executed agreement and document in her favour. On the ground of non-compliance of terms and conditions of the proposal, the proposal was cancelled by respondent/defendant No.1 and finally, land was allotted to respondent No.2 after following the procedure prescribed. Respondent No.2 has also denied adverse allegation of the plaint and has specifically pleaded that the land in question has been allotted by respondent No.1 to him after following the procedure prescribed and he is in possession of the suit land.

(3.) On the basis of averments made by the parties, issues were framed, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed, but decree of alternate relief of return money was granted.