AJMER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to refund Rs. 50,463/along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) IN short the case set up by the petitioner is that he was allotted residential plot No. 7 in Sector 33-A, Chandigarh, on 10. 11. 1967 at a cost of Rs. 4056/ -. In accordance with the conditions', of allotment, the petitioner deposited 25% of the amount within 30 days. On 18. 12. 1934 the petitioner informed the respondent about his intention to sell the house, to which a reply was given by respondent No. 2 on 12. 2. 1985 that in terms of Rule 8-C of the Chandigarh. (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1960 (for short 'the Rules'), the petitioner should pay Rs. 50,463/- as an unearned increase in the value of the property. This amount was deposited by the petitioner vide receipt dated 12. 2. 1985 (Annexure P4), and on the basis of this permission was granted in favour of Smt. Shavinder Kaur mother of Sh. Tejinder Singh Grewal for sale of the house. Now the petitioner says that the amount of Rs. 50,483/- was paid by him under compulsion and the respondents had no right to realise the aforesaid amount from the petitioner and, therefore, he has a right to the refund of the aforesaid amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the order dated 23rd July, 1939 passed by a learned Single Judge in C. W. P. No. 9516 of 1988, Brigadier (Retd.) Harbans Singh Sekhon v. Union Territory Chandigarh) , whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the demand of Rs. 2,04,101/- and directed the respondent to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Learned counsel further submitted that L. P. A. No. 1755 of 1939 filed against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by a Division Bench on 23rd October, 1989, and as the petitioner's claim is similar to that of Brigadier Harbans Singh, the respondents be directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam v. The State of Punjab and Ors. , A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 2537.