NAILI KANTA MUDULI Vs. BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute raised in the present writ application lies within a narrow compass. For appreciating the respective contention of the parties, it is necessary to state the facts in brief:

(2.) THE Petitioner's case is that in the year 1998, he came to know that a plot of land for construction of Cinema Hall under the aforesaid scheme introduced by the B.D.A. was still lying vacant as there was no response for the same. The Petitioner made an application to the Vice Chairman, B.D.A. for allotment of the said plot of land for construction of the Cinema Hall under the Self Financing Commercial Scheme expressing his willingness to pay the entire cost of land as fixed by the B.D.A. within a maximum period of three months. The B.D.A. through its Allotment Officer in its letter dated 24.8.1998 intimated the Petitioner that his application for allotment of the said plot has been allowed and the Petitioner has been provisionally allotted the plot bearing No. 306 measuring 24,152 sqr. Ft. and the cost of the said plot is Rs. 10,43, 482/ - and it being a corner plot, the Petitioner is required to deposit a further amount of Rs. 5000/ -, thus, totalling to a sum of Rs. 10,48,482/ - towards the cost of the plot of land within three months from the date of issue of the said letter. It was stipulated that failing such payment, the Petitioner would be liable to pay interest @ 16.5% per annum. It was also mentioned in the said letter that the Petitioner would also be liable to pay interest as late comer to the above scheme, which will be intimated later on. The Petitioner deposited the entire amount of Rs. 10,48,482/ - in three instalments and intimated the B.D.A. that he has paid the entire amount towards the cost of the plot making a request to hand over possession of the same to him in the letter dated 11.11.1998 under Annexure -2. Thereafter, the B.D.A. in its letter 4.1.1999 intimated the Petitioner that he is required to pay a further sum of Rs. 3, 90,103/ - towards interest as late comer to the scheme. The Petitioner made a representation to the Secretary B.D.A. starting that levy of interest on the Petitioner as late comer is wholly unjust, improper and illegal specially when the Petitioner has deposited the entire cost of the land as stipulated in the provisional allotment letter. However, the B.D.A. without acceding to the request of the Petitioner in its letter dated 9.8.1999 intimated him that he is to pay interest to the tune of Rs. 4,23,628/ - failing which more interest will be charged. The Petitioner again represented before the B.D.A. But the B.D.A. increased the demand of interest in letter dated 7.7.2000 to an amount of Rs. 4, 80,233/ -. It appears that the Petitioner continued to resist such claim of the B.D.A. resulting in another letter from the B.D.A. dated 16.9,2002 wherein the interest demanded was Rs. 6,18,888/ - and it was stated that failing to pay such interest, the allotment of the plot of land made in favour of the Petitioner would be cancelled. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure -13 to the Writ Petition. The Petitioner being aggrieved by such demand has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, making a prayer that the levy of interest as stipulated in the Brochure for late comers be declared as illegal and unjust and the levy of compound interest as has been demanded under Annexure -13 when no principal amount was due to be paid is also equally illegal and unjust. The Petitioner on the above ground has sought for quashing the demand raised in the letter under Annexure -13.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, it would appear that the Brochure introduced by the B.D.A. under Annexure -A to the counter affidavit inviting applications for allotment of shop rooms, pindies, commercial plots etc. as already stated above, was in force till 16.1.1993. Since, there was no application by any intending purchaser for the plot of land in question, it has been allotted to the Petitioner. Since the last date of receipt of application was fixed as 16.1.1993, it cannot be said that the Brochure remained open after 16.1.1993. The Petitioner admittedly, upon coming to know that the plot of land is lying vacant and there was no applicant for the same, made an application for the same as late as in the year 1998. Prima facie, we are of the view that the terms enumerated in the Brochure did not remain open after the last date fixed and will not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. Even assuming that the same can be applied for a land which was available to be allotted under the Brochure, it would be seen that Clause - 8 of the said Brochure prescribes the terms with regard to payment of interest as follows: