LAL SINGH RAJE Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 13.2.2013 (Annexure P-1). The brief facts for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he made repeated requests to GDA to intimate the amount which is required to be paid by him from time to time. By taking this Court to the representation Annexure P-7, it is stated that despite petitioner's repeated requests, the respondents have not paid any heed and did not inform about the amount required to be paid. It is stated that the petitioner was always ready to deposit the requisite amount but the respondents have failed to do the same. The said action of the respondents is assailed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) PER contra, Ms. Akansha Mishra, learned counsel for the GDA, supported the order. It is stated by the GDA that as per terms and conditions of the allotment (Annexure P-6), the allottee was required to deposit 5% of the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of intimation, i.e., 22.3.2002. In the letter dated 22.3.2002 itself it is mentioned to deposit the said amount within a period of 30 days but the petitioner deliberately did not deposit the said amount. Reminder was sent to the petitioner on 26.6.2002 but the petitioner did not pay any heed to it. The petitioner after ten years preferred the representation dated 10.12.2012 which is an after thought and this will not cover his earlier in action. By referring to a decision of the meeting dated 24.12.2012, it is submitted that in cases where beneficiaries have only deposited registration amount and time limit of depositing the allotment amount is already expired, in such cases the allotment be treated as cancelled and the amount so deposited shall be refunded. This resolution is filed as Annexure R-2. In the present case, it is the stand of the GDA that the petitioner has deposited the registration amount to the tune of Rs.41613/- and had not deposited the other amounts and, therefore, his case falls within the category of Clause-"1" and he is not entitled for any benefit after ten years. It is argued by the petitioner that the said decision was never brought to his notice. If respondents did not cancel the allotment for ten years, there was no justification to cancel the same on a latter stage. More so, when the petitioner had already preferred the representation in this regard.