BIMLA Vs. HUDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Bimla is before us by way of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Gurgaon, to reschedule the installments after offer of possession and to pay interest on deposited amount as per their own Policy dated 25.1.2007 (Annexure P -7). As per case of the petitioner, plot No. 2919 -P, Sector 57, Gurgaon was allotted to one Ashok Kumar, vide letter of allotment dated 28.1.2005, for a cost of Rs. 10,16,400/ -. On request of the allottee, the said plot was transferred and reallotted in favour of the petitioner -Bimla vide letter dated 31.3.2005.

(2.) THE petitioner states that though possession of the plot in question, was offered to her on 14.1.2010 but it was only a paper formality as the respondent could not offer possession in view of the fact that part of the plot was subject matter of stay order. Petitioner requested respondent No. 2 to complete the road construction work and to offer possession of site in clear terms and the plot should be of equal size as that of the plot offered to the original allottee. Respondent No. 2 (Estate Officer), on request of the petitioner, is stated to have conveyed to her on 17.01.2013 that the plot is clear and development work has already been completed. The Estate Officer is also stated to have sought consent of the petitioner if she wanted to have that plot. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, means that possession of the plot, in question, was offered to the petitioner on 17.1.2013 and that being so, the respondents are liable to reschedule the installments and pay interest on the amount already deposited by the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of offer of possession i.e. 17.1.2013.

(3.) IT comes out that as per schedule of payment given in the letter of re -allotment (Annexure P -1), the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 127050/ - on 28.1.2006, second installment of the same amount on 28.1.2007, third on 28.1.2008, fourth on 28.1.2009, fifth on 28.1.2010 and sixth on 28.1.2011. However, as per averments of the petitioner herself, she has paid only an amount of Rs. 1,41,429/ - on 24.2.2005, Rs. 70,000/ - on 22.2.2006, Rs. 58,000/ - on 27.6.2006 and Rs. 2,82,200/ - on 9.1.2010. This indicates that the petitioner has failed to adhere to the schedule of payment as given in the letter of re -allotment. Further, respondent No. 2, vide memo dated 14.12.2012/10.1.2013 (Annexure P -5) asked the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 15,76,840/ - as proportionate costs on enhanced compensation on account of acquisition but the petitioner has failed to pay that amount also.