SHANTI DEVI Vs. FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION NIT FARIDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:-

(2.) The suit is filed for specific performance by the plaintiff contending that a plot measuring 66 1/2 square yards was adjacent to her other property of which she was already the owner and she was also in the possession of the said property. Although her possession was adverse, she applied to the Faridabad Administration for sale of the property on 16.03.1981. The administration accepted the offer and allotted the same against the price of Rs. 8,857.80. The plaintiff paid the consideration as determined and passed a receipt therefor.

(3.) Pursuant to the permission granted, the plaintiff had applied for permission to construct a bathroom and latrine over the plot and after submitting a plan, raised construction in April 1981 itself. The plaintiff would state that she had spent over Rs. 5,000/- for the construction. To her surprise, she was served with a notice issued under Section 50(2) of the Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act of 1971 ( for short, the Act) directing the defendant to remove the construction since the construction was unauthorized. The plaintiff would submit that she had taken possession of the property for more than 13 years prior to suit but later her own possession was legitimized through an application for allotment which was approved and all that was necessary to be done was only to execute a sale deed. The plaintiff had already parted with the whole consideration and the defendant should be, therefore, compelled to execute a sale by a decree for specific performance. It appeared that the plaintiff had also filed a suit challenging the notice directing removal of the alleged unauthorized construction. When an objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit, the plaintiff had withdrawn the same and presented a fresh suit for specific performance which is the instant suit.