ANJALI SWAROOP Vs. NOIDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of writ petitions raising similar questions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. All these writ petitions have been filed on similar facts and grounds. It is sufficient to refer to the pleadings of writ petitions No. 230 of 2009, 266 of 2009 and 22 of 2009 for deciding all these writ petitions.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary to be noted for deciding these writ petitions are; New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Noida') issued a residential plot scheme 2004 (1) inviting applications for allotment of residential plots in different sectors including Sector No. 44. The petitioners submitted applications in response to the notice by depositing the registration amount. The Noida authority have conducted draw of lots on 2.7.2005 in which several applicants were selected for allotment. By a subsequent order dated 4.7.2005, the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 was cancelled. A writ petition being Civil Misc. writ petition No. 48287 of 2005, Deepak Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others was filed in this Court for a direction upon the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner Deepak Sharma on the basis of the allotment letter issued pursuant to draw of lots held on 2.7.2005. Subsequently by means of amendment application, the petitioner sought the quashing of the order dated 4.7.2005. Another writ petition No. 50418 of 2005 Manav Sewa Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. was filed praying for a direction prohibiting the Noida authority to approve the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 and for causing an investigation to be done by the suitable agency to determine the liability of individual officers and for holding a fresh draw of lots. The aforesaid two writ petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Court and were decided by judgment and order dated 5.10.2005. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that that in the draw of lots held on 2.7.2005, fraud and manipulation were done and the order dated 4.7.2005 cancelling the draw of lots was fully justified. The Division Bench further held that the official of the Noida authority had surpassed all levels of fraud and had lost confidence of public therefore, in order to find out the guilty persons responsible for fraud and manipulation in the draw of lots and in order to restore the confidence of the public in the matter, fresh draw of lots be not held by Noida authority and be held by a Committee as mentioned in the order. Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation was also directed by Division Bench in the whole matter. The Division Bench directed draw of fresh lots by the Committee preferably within a period of four weeks. The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6794-6795 of 2005, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Deepak Sharma as well as in Civil Appeal No. 6800-6801 of 2005, Deepak Sharma Vs. State of U.P. The apex Court passed an order staying the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However, the Civil Appeal of the Noida was subsequently dismissed on 22.11.2007 on statements made on behalf of Noida to the effect that Noida has taken a decision to implement the decision of the High Court hence, the appeals are not pressed with a direction that appellant shall implement the direction of the High Court. The appeal filed by Deepak Sharma was dismissed as devoid of merit. Although the appeals were dismissed by apex Court on 22.11.2007 but the draw of lots was not held immediately.

(3.) WE have heard Sri V.B. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, Sri K.K. Singh, Sri N.P. Singh for the petitioners and Sri Ravindra Kumar and Ramendra Pratap Singh for Noida authority. Sri M.C. Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has been heared for the State. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are as follows: (i) Noida authority having invited application at the rate of Rs. 11,200/- per square meter for sector 44, the petitioners are entitled for allotment according to the rate as provided in the brochure. (ii) The first draw of lots held on 2.7.2005 was cancelled due to large scale irregularities and illegalities in draw of lots held by Noida authority themselves and subsequently draw of lots could be held only on 8.11.2008. The lapse is on the part of Noida authority itself and the petitioners cannot be saddled with the higher rates as mentioned in the allotment letters. The delay being not on the part of the petitioners, the Noida authority cannot take benefit of its own wrong. (iii) The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 5.10.2005 has directed for draw of fresh lots preferably within a period of one month. Noida authority itself challenged the said order and obtained stay order from the apex Court. Subsequently the appeal was got dismissed as not pressed on 22.11.2007 and even thereafter the lots were not drawn till 8.11.2008. The delay in drawing lots was due to inaction of Noida itself for which the petitioners cannot be held liable. (iv) No reasons have been given for escalation of price. No development has been carried out on the spot hence,the respondents are not entitled to escalate the price. Even the resolutions filed along with the counter affidavit of the Noida authority deciding to revise and enhance the price of land in Boards' meeting dated 28.3.2005, vide letter dated 17.7.2007 and in the Board meeting held on 1.5.2008 does not contain any reason for escalation of price. The escalation of price is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and malafide.