SATYANARAYAN SOMANI Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, HARDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by demand notice dated 29.9.2000 and the order dated 12.4.2002 rejecting the petitioner's application submitted in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P No.6093/2000.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased a HIG House No.7 in the Housing Scheme floated by the Special Area Development Authority, Harda in the year 1986 which has now been converted into Municipal Council, Harda. It is submitted that the initial notified price of the house was Rs.1,50,000/- but it was ultimately given to the petitioner at a price of Rs.1,67,480/-. It is submitted that the petitioner deposited the entire amount in the year 1991 when the possession of the house was handed over to the petitioner, however subsequently the respondent authorities issued the impugned demand notice to the petitioner on 29.9.2000 asking him to deposit an additional sum of Rs.4,05,112/- as the respondents had obtained a loan from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO). It is submitted that the amount which had to be deposited and paid by the petitioner to the Municipal Council within 15 years was sought to be recovered within three years which resulted in the accumulated liability and, therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved, had filed W.P No.6093/2000 before this Court which was disposed of on 11.1.2002 with a direction to the respondent Council to consider the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in similar petitions. It is submitted that the respondent authorities, without considering the matter in its proper prospective, have again rejected the application of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 12.4.2002, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) THOUGH the learned counsel for the Municipal Council, Harda vehemently opposed the petition filed by the petitioner, he however fairly concedes that a similar and identical petition in respect of the same housing scheme has been partly allowed by order dated 29.6.2007 passed in M.P. No.3900/1994 by issuing certain directions to the respondent Municipal Council. It is further stated that the order passed in M.P. No.3900/1994 has in fact been complied with by the Council.