ARCHANA GUPTA Vs. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, appearing on behalf of opposite-parties.

(2.) The petitioner has alleged that a Scheme, known as "Sharda Nagar Scheme" was launched by opposite-party No. 2 on 20th June, 1988, which was valid from 20th June, 1988 to 31st August, 1988, and the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Brochure, deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as registration fee, for purchase of 'A' type plot on hire purchase basis. The petitioner has also alleged that in pursuance of the allotment letter, dated 22.10.1990, plot No. 1/109, Sector Rashmi Khand, Sharda Nagar Scheme, was allotted to the petitioner on the basis of a lottery, which was drawn on 27th July, 1990. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rate of Rs. 370/- per sq. meter was mentioned in the Brochure, but in the allotment letter, dated 22.10.1990, the rate was revised by the opposite-parties from Rs. 370/- per sq. meter to Rs. 530/-per sq. meter, which was legally not permissible, as no such condition was contained in the Brochure that the Development Authority, will be at liberty to increase the price of the land at the time of allotment. He further submits that the opposite-parties have admitted the contents of paras 18 and 19 of the writ petition in their counter-affidavit and the petitioner has deposited the enhanced amount under protest in 12 instalments, which were fixed by the Lucknow Development Authority. He further submits that till date the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,97,148/- against the initial cost of Rs. 1,99,800/-. He further submits that in the Brochure, there is a condition in Clause (6) for the enhancement of the price of the houses, subject to increase of the material and labour charges, and there was no such condition for the increase of the price of the land and, as such, the opposite-parties may be directed to refund the excess money with interest.

(3.) Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite-parties, submits that the Scheme was opened in June, 1988 and the allotment was made on 22.10.1990, i.e. after two years and the rate, which was prevailing at the time of allotment, was charged from the petitioner, who has deposited the same instalments fixed by the opposite-parties, and the petitioner cannot challenge the increase in the price after the deposit of the entire amount. He further submits that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the opposite-parties, and in pursuance of the agreement, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount and now she cannot claim for the refund as prayed in the instant writ petition. He further submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.