VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 5 and order dated 20.1.2007 (Annexure-8) and order dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent No. 4 and the direction to respondent No. 5 to revive the allotment of the commercial plot No. C-20 situated in Ganganagar, Mawana Road, Meerut as per Clause 11 of the Brochure and Clause "Da" of the agreement dated 1.2.2005.

(2.) Shortly stating the facts of the case are that the Meerut Development Authority advertised for allotment of commercial plots in various schemes of the Authority on auction-cum-sale basis. On 28.2.2004, the petitioner being the highest bidder was allotted plot No. C-20 Ganga Nagar Scheme, Mawana Road, Meerut and subsequently an agreement for purchase of the plot on instalment basis was executed between Meerut Development Authority and the petitioner. In the aforesaid agreement it was provided that the cost of the plot is Rs. 10,20,000 which is to be paid in 8 six monthly instalments starting from 5.10.2004 and ending on 5.4.2008 as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was also provided that for default of payment of regular instalments, the allotment shall be cancelled and the paid money be forfeited. It would further provide in Clause 14 of the Brochure that if an offer is made by the allottee to pay the amount of defaulted instalments within a month from the order of cancellation the allotment shall be revived. The petitioner while depositing the instalments defaulted in payment of two instalments, hence the respondent No. 3 cancelled the allotment of plot and communicated the fact of cancellation of allotment vide letter dated 23/24.8.2006 which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner on 24.8.2006 made an offer to pay the defaulted amount within a month to the U.P. Sachiv of the respondent No. 3 but no final order was passed on the said offer of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3734 of 2004 in which a direction was issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to comply the Clause 11 of their own brochure and directed the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner made by his representation within 12 weeks. The petitioner preferred a representation on 9.10.2006 alongwith order of the Hon'ble Court before respondents No. 2 and 3 which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, whereupon on 29.12.2006 respondent No. 3 revived the allotment in favour of the petitioner vide order (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) subject to deposit of twice the amount of rate of the land prevailing at the time of order plus 10% of the cost of land as location charges plus 30% charges towards freehold, water supply sewer etc. and 18% interest payable in eight six monthly instalments. On 20.1.2007, respondent No. 4 has communicated the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). On 15.2.2007, the petitioner made an application before respondent No. 3 praying that the allotment of his plot may be revived on the rate of land prevailing at the time of cancellation (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). The petitioner also made a similar application before respondent No. 5 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition). On 9.3.2007, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in hope of rate revision of his plot. On 9.7.2007, respondent No. 4 intimated the petitioner that by some order dated 16.6.2007 respondent No. 5 has rejected his representations dated 15.2.2007 and 19.2.2007 and has fixed the instalment by increasing the rate of one instalment for Rs. 1,89,420 to Rs. 2,73,787 per six months.

(3.) Respondents have filed counter-affidavit. While denying the contentions raised in the affidavit annexed with the writ petition respondents submitted that the petitioner was defaulter of more than two instalments. The petitioner on the very next day moved an application dated 24.8.2006 for recalling the cancellation order which was under consideration. The representation of the petitioner was decided on 29.12.2006 under order of Hon'ble Court dated 26.9.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 53734 of 2006. On 20.11.1999, the Government issued costing Guidelines and vide Clause 14 of the same provides guidelines for imposing charges for reviving the cancelled allotment. The cancellation was made on account of fault of the allottee and revival will be made either on the then prevailing market rate or on the current rate of scheme whichever is more. It is incorrect that freehold charges @ 30% were charged. It is also stated that 75% of the value of the plots in the scheme was also calculated but the same being less it was not accepted and applied in the order dated 29.12.2006. The representation/application of the petitioner dated 9.10.2006 was decided as per rules and on market rate prevailing for commercial plots on the said date. Since there was some error in the calculation of the amount deposited by the petitioner and interest in the letter dated 20.1.2007, hence the corrected letter dated 9.7.2007 was issued. It was stated that 30% was directed to be deposited after adjustment of entire amount already paid by the petitioner in lump sum and for remaining 70% eight six monthly instalments have been fixed. The restoration has been made as per Government order dated 20.11.1999 on the then prevailing market value of the commercial plot. It is stated that upto 10.3.2008 the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 5,71,163, a copy of the computer calculation is filed as Annexure-CA 1 to the counter-affidavit. It is stated that Rs. 1,89,420 is the principal amount of instalment and with interest it is shown as Rs. 3,10,648 to be paid on 10.10.2007 and in place of principal amount it is corrected as Rs. 1,37,404 and in place of interest as Rs. 1,36,382 total Rs. 2,73,87 to be paid on 10.8.2007 as first instalment of eight instalments. Market rate of the commercial plot is twice of the rate of residential plot and therefore residential rate was increased to two times. Hence, higher rate was to be applied and market rate was taken into account. It is also stated that 10% location charges for corner plot was added. Since the allotment was cancelled due to default of petitioner, he had to give market rate on the date of revival of the allotment. The petitioner is still defaulter.