GHAZIBAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. LAJJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the appeals were admitted by Hon. R. N. Ray, J. (since retired) vide order dated 10-12-97 no substantial questions of law were formulated. However, Sri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the two appeals on following substantial questions of law formulated by him in the of memos appeal:- "1. Whether the appellant was only authorized to sanction the site plan for the construction of 1. 5 F. A. R. The respondents admitted a site plan for construction of multistoried building of 3. 5 F. A. R. , site plan of which can only be passed after the Board of the appellant in its meeting approves it and sends its recommendation to the State Government and the State Government grants its permission, only then site plan of 3. 5 F. A. R. of multistoried can be passed. No request was made nor any application was given by the plaintiff respondent that his case be placed before the Board of the appellant but view to the contrary taken by the appellate Court is wholly illegal and erroneous?

(2.) WHETHER as per the rules and regulations of the appellant the respondents are liable to pay development charges, internal developments charges and betterment charges to the appellant as the land in dispute is situated within the regulated area and as such before permitting construction on a free hold land development charges etc. are charged as per the rules and regulations of the appellant but view to the contrary taken by the appellate Court is wholly illegal and erroneous?" 2. In Second Appeal No. 1139 of 1997 one more question raised is that the trial Court decreed the suit for allotment of certain lands to the plaintiffs-respondents on payment of consideration as directed by the Courts below. The decree is in the nature of specific performance of the contract. There was no agreement. Hence the said decree is without jurisdiction.

(3.) IN suit No. 509 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of khasra plot No. 233 area admeasuring 1-13-0 pucca bigha, khasra plot No. 232 area admeasuring 0-13-0 pucca bigha, khasra plot No. 232 area admeasuring 0-13-0 and khasra plot No. 377/2 area admeasuring 1-13-0 pucca bigha with similar allegations and for the same relief. However, by subsequent amendment in the plaint another relief added was that by passing a mandatory decree the defendant be directed to allot 1378. 71 square meter land after accepting consideration of Rs. 708/- per sq. meter and betterment charges at the rate of 1% of the sale consideration. The material allegations on which the said relief was added were that the defendant is developing the land in Kaushambi scheme. According to the development plan some of the roads, drainage, sewer etc. pass through the land of the plaintiffs. The defendant requires 447. 22 sq. meter land of khasra No. 377/2 and the defendant shall have to allot 1549. 95 sq. meter of land to straighten the land of the plaintiffs. Likewise for construction of road, boundary wall of sub-stations the defendant needs 277. 45-sq. meter of land and the plaintiffs need 1656. 16-sq. meter of land for constructions of the building. After adjustment the plaintiffs will be given 1378. 71-sq. meter land. The agreement in this respect was arrived at between the parties and the defendant shall have to pay Rs. 708/- plus one per cent betterment charges to the plaintiffs.