IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE version of the respondent was that he was

(2.) IT was further pleaded that the appellants had failed to provide the basic amenities like water supply, sewerage, roads, electricity, etc. nor they had provided the petrol pump, park, market, etc. as assured by them. The appellants had also failed to deliver possession of the plot at the spot to the respondent by making demarcation. Hence, the complaint for direction to the appellants to provide the basic amenities and also to deliver vacant possession. Interest was also claimed on the principal amount deposited by the respondent and for refund of the interest amount paid on the instalments. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.

(3.) THE appellants filed the written reply. It was admitted that the respondent was allotted plot No. 7 by the appellants measuring 161.33 square yards in 7 acres Maharaja Ranjit Singh Market vide allotment letter dated 26.6.2001. It was pleaded that the 4th and 5th instalments were payable in June 2003 and December 2003 but the respondent submitted the drafts in June 2004 and July 2004. Therefore, he was liable to pay the penal interest. It was, however, denied if the basic amenities like park, water supply, sewerage, roads, street light, park light, etc. were not provided at the spot. It was denied if any promise was made by the appellants to provide petrol pump, park, market, etc. It was also denied if the possession of the plot was not given to the respondent. The appellants had written letter dated 26.6.2001 to the respondent to take possession of the allotted plot but the respondent had failed to respond. It was denied if the appellants had assured to remove the truck union from that place or if the respondent was entitled to any compensation, interest and costs.