TRIBHUWAN NARAIN SINGH Vs. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up for grant of following reliefs :

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows :He entered on 18.8.1978 (copy appended as Annexure-1) an agreement with Respondent No. 1 for purchasing one Lower Income Group Flat constructed by the latter in Chakla Bagh, now known as Shastri Nagar Development Scheme, situated in Mohalla Lallapura of the City of Varanasi. In terms of the agreement he deposited Rs. 18,000/- through Receipt No. 27 (copy appended as Annexure- 2). It was provided in the agreement that the balance amount shall be deposited by him after taking possession of Flat No. L-5/37 in question, which was allotted to him, At that time the cost of the flat was Rs. 24,884.68 Paise and Rs. 18,000/- already having been paid, the balance amount, was payable in instalments after the delivery of possession. Even though the building consisting the flat in question was completed in 1980 the possession of the flat in question has not been handed over to the petitioner till date even though to other allottees possession was given who are living and enjoying their flats since 1980. There was no reason for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hand-over possession of the flat in question to him even though for that purchase he made repeated requests orally and in writing. Only to delay the matter Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction of Respondent No.-3 Shitla Prasad Singh before the City Magistrate, Varanasi (the Prescribed Authority under Section 3 of the U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1972) on 7.6.1980 (copy of the plaint appended as Annexure-3) who decided the same in favour of Respondent No 1 directing him to vacate the flat in question and hand-over its possession to Respondent No. 1. It was reported to the Magistrate that Respondent No. 3 had vacated the flat in question and handed over its possession to Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 16.12.1981 (coppy appended as Anncxure-4). Respondent No. 3, however, challenged the correctness of the order in appeal filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority remanded the case vide its judgment dated 23rd March, 1982 (copy appended as Annexure 5). The City Magistrate Varanasi once again vide his order dated 23rd August, 1983 (copy appended as Annexure 6) allowed the suit. Against this order also Respondent No. 3 went up in appeal but his appeal was dismissed for default. The said appeal after 8 years was restored back by the District Judge, Varanasi without any information to the petitioner. As soon as he made an effort for his impleadment as a party in order to challenge the order of restoration Respondent No. 1 all of a sudden withdrew the original case itself due to connivance with Respondent No. 3 and also executed a Memorandum of Lease (copy appended as Annexure) in favour of Respondent No. 4, wife of Respondent No. 3 without cancelling the Memorandum of Lease executed in his favour. The withdrawal and execution of the document speaks the unfairness of Respondent No. 1 and its favouritism and collusion. Despite several requests in writing vide letters as contained in Annexures 7 to 13 to the Secretary, Vice Chairman and the Chairman of the Authority no result came out and hence this writ petition.

(3.) After the issue of notices to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide order dated 6.3.1998 opportunities were granted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to file their counter vide orders dated 15.1.1999, 15.2.2001 and lastly vide order dated 20.2.2001 but no counter-affidavit has been filed.