GOPAL SWARUP CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Naveen Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Samit Gopal on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State Government.

(2.) THE dispute pertaining to grant of free hold rights in respect of Plot No.146 -A Civil Station, Allahabad which was subsequently bifurcated into three separate plots bearing Plot Nos.146 -A/1, 146 -A/2 and 146 -A/3 Civil Station, Allahabad was a subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.18964/2009, filed by the present petitioner, Writ Petition No.42745/2009 filed by Smt. Veena Chaturvedi and Writ Petition. 42748/2009 filed by Smt. Manorama Vajpai. The Division Bench of this Court after examining the provisions of the Government Order's dated 17/2/1996, 26/9/1997, 10/12/2002 and 21/10/2008, found that the demand notice dated 13/3/2009, as issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad for grant of free hold rights in respect of the aforesaid subdivided plots was illegal. The demand notices were accordingly quashed and the District Magistrate was directed to redetermine the amount payable in the light of the observations made in the judgment and strictly in accordance with the Government Orders noticed by the Court. The Division Bench further clarified that a revised demand notice shall be issued to the petitioners within seven days and that the amount already paid by the petitioners shall be adjusted. In case there is any short fall, the petitioners shall deposit the same within two weeks thereafter. In case it is found that any amount in excess has already been paid by the petitioners it shall be returned to them with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Division Bench of the Court after noticing the aforesaid Government Orders specifically opined as follows:

(3.) THE District Magistrate, Allahabad in compliance to the order of the High Court referred to above, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed the order impugned dated 07/1/2013. This order of the District Magistrate is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition only to the extent that an additional demand of 10% of the circle rate as applicable in respect of land situate at Kasturba Gandhi Road has been demanded under Clause 3 (2) in addition to the amount calculated under Clause 3 (1) of the Government Order dated 26/9/1997, as corner charges. Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that this additional demand of 10% of the circle rate applicable to Kasturba Gandhi Road is unsustainable in the eyes of law. On a simple reading of Clause 3(2) of the Government Order dated 26/9/1997, this additional demand of 10% of the circle rate can only be made if the Nazul Plot was identified in the lease deed with reference to a particular road i.e. its location is fixed with reference to any particular road in the lease deed.