MAN MOHAN ANAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this petition is whether the period of 90 days has to be counted w. e. f, 15. 5. 2003, the date on which the notice was served on the petitioners to deposit free hold amount or from the next date i. e. , 16. 5. 2003?

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 30. 1. 1999, the petitioner applied under the policy of the State Government for getting their residential Nazul plot No. 7 free hold. The petitioners deposited 25 per cent of the tree hold charges. The petitioners on 15. 5. 2. 003 received a notice dated 8. 5. 2003 by which they were directed to pay Rs. 3,44,212. 56 as balance amount of free hold charges within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the notice. Rs. 36,446. 25 as transfer charges and Rs. 234. 50 as lease rent were also demanded. On 13. 8. 2003, the petitioners deposited the free hold charges and other charges as demanded by the respondents within 90 days of the receipt of the notice after availing the rebate ot 20 per cent on the free hold charges as was provided in the Government Policy. On 20. 10. 2003, the petitioners received a notice dated 15. 10. 2003, by which the petitioners were directed by the respondents to deposit a further sum of Rs. 86,612. 90 as according to the respondents the petitioners were not entitled for rebate of 20 per cent on the amount of the free hold charges as the amount as per the notice received on 15. 5. 2003 was not paid within a period 90 days but was paid on the 91st day from the date of receipt of notice. The petitioners on 26. 10. 2003 filed their reply and stated that they had deposited the amount of free hold charges within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of notice excluding the date on which the notice was received by them. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur passed an order dated 17. 1. 2004, which was communicated by the respondent No. 2, Nagar Palika Parishad, saharanpur to the petitioners along with the letter dated 10. 2. 2004, which was received by the petitioners on 20. 2. 2004. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Mukesh Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3. Shri C. S. Singh who has appeared for respondent No. 2.