RAJVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge raised in this petition is with regard to demand raised by Respondent No.3 on the ground that firstly the respondents ought to have put the petitioners to notice and secondly they had no authority to realise any such enhanced amount. The submission is based on the judgment in the case of Ishwar Dass Nassa and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 1 SCC 753. Sri Dubey submits that as per paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, the impugned realisation cannot be made even accepting the terms and conditions of final costing of the respondents. He further contends that had the respondent - authority put the petitioners to notice then even assuming though not admitting that such an amount could be realized, the quantum ought to have been fixed as it is a financial liability that could be saddled only after putting the petitioners to notice.

(2.) The contention, therefore, in the alternative is that the demand raised deserves to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri Nishith Yadav has invited the attention of the Court to a similar matter having been dismissed by this Court in the case of Jai Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No.2714 of 2014, decided on 17.1.2014, and to the decision in the case of Shimla Development Authority Vs. Asha Rani, 1996 8 SCC 487, to urge that the authority is entitled to realise the enhanced amount which in the present case is on account of a third factor of judicial intervention by virtue of the Full Bench decision in the case of Gajraj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 11 ADJ 1.