DEEP CHAND Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, by this writ petition, have prayed that the respondents may be directed to get the lease-deed registered in their favour in respect of plot No. 58, Masuriya Sector 4-B, Jodhpur, before April 31,1991. It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs, 20,000/- on account of loss and injury suffered by the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners, in an open auction held on September 18,1982, purchased the plot No. 58, Masuriya Sector 4-E, Jodhpur, for a consideration of Rs. 2,55,958. 08p. and deposited the entire cost of the plot with the respondents, but the respondents neither issued the licence in favour of the petitioners nor executed or registered the lease-deed in their favour. As the licence was not granted by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1963 of 1988 (Deep Chand Surana vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur), and was decided on October 18,1989. THE writ petition filed by the petitioners was allowed as the counsel for the respondents gave an undertaking that the licence will be issued within two weeks from that day. THE counsel for the Urban Improvement Trust, also, gave an undertaking that in case the petitioners apply for permission for raising the construction over the plot in question then the permission will be issued to them in accordance with law. THE case of the petitioner is that inspite of the writ petition being allowed in favour of the petitioner by this Court vide its order dated October 18, 1989, the respondents have not granted the licence to the petitioner nor gave the permission to raise the construction over the plot in question though the petitioners approached the respondents several times. It has further been averred that the peti-tioners intend to take loan from the scheduled bank and for that the bank req-uires the registered sale-deed/lease deed and the petitioners, therefore, requested the respondent to execute and register the sale-deed/lease deed in their favour so that they may be able to get loan from the scheduled bank. THE case of the petitioners is that such type of advanced lease-deed were executed by the respondent in several cases, including the case of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya and Jodhpur Hospital, Jodhpur. THE respondents filed reply to the Show Cause Notice and their case is that the bid of the petitioner for Rs. 2,55,958. 08 p. was the highest and the petitioner deposited 1 /4th of this amount on September 18,1982, and they were required to deposit the remaining amount by October 28, 1982, but the petitioners paid this amount vide two cheques on November 27, 1982, and these cheques were cleared on December 1,1982. THE case of the respondents is that as the amount was paid late by one month and, therefore, they are entitled for interest on this late payment of the amount. As the interest of one month on this amount has not been paid by the petitioners and, therefore, the lease deed cannot be executed in their favour. So far as the grant of advanace lease-deed is concerned, the case of the respondents is that the cases of Mr. Hukam Chand Lohiya and Jodhpur Hospital and others are different from the case of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any advance lease-deed.