URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST JODHPUR Vs. LAXMI CHAND BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 5-4-1990 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 951 of 1989, whereby the learned single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent, directed the non-petitioner-appellant U.I.T. to allot the petitioner a plot of equal importance of the same measurement in the Ist Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur. It was further directed that the petitioner will have to pay the difference between the plot allotted to him and the rates which were prevalent in the year 1984, if there is any, and the non-petitioner U.I.T. will also be entitled to charge the amount in accordance with law and if any amount due to the petitioner towards the earlier allotment. It was also directed that the allotment shall be made within a period of three months from today and the petitioner is entitled to costs, which is quantified to the extent of Rs. 2,000.00.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are : that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 47-C measuring 317.50 sq. yds. in the 1st extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur for a sum of Rs. 27,384.37P vide order Annexure-1 dated 11-5-1984. At the initial stage, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 on 30-11-1983 vide receipt Annexure-2. Rs. 20,000.00 were further deposited by him vide receipt Annexure-3 dated 6-8-1984. It is alleged that the remaining amount of Rs. 2384.37P was offered several times but the appellant U.I.T. on one or the other pretext did not accept the same as the plot was not ready for allotment because the licence of the same was given to some other person. It is further alleged that the appellant U.I.T. came to know that on account of non-maintenance of disposal register, it has become a case of double allotment. The petitioner respondent then informed the appellant U.I.T. to allot him some other alternate plot and further requested that he should not be allowed to suffer on account of the mistake and negligence on the part of the employees of the appellant U.I.T. The petitioner-respondent Laxmichand also informed the appellant U.I.T. that number of plots in Sector-A and other Sectors of Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur are lying vacant and, therefore, he should be allotted a plot in Kamla Nehru Nagar itself.

(3.) However, it appears that on 8-8-1988 (which appears to be a wrong date, it must be 8-8-89), a direction was issued that the petitioner-respondent Laxmichand be allotted another plot No. 260-B in Saraswati Nagar, Jodhpur. This order was passed by the appellant U.I.T. after obtaining a detailed report from the office but even thereafter, nothing has been done. It was submitted that the petitioner has already suffered irreparable loss and injury inasmuch as on account of this delay, he could not raise the construction and the cost of the construction is going high day by day. He has, therefore, prayed that the non-petitioner-appellant U.I.T. be directed to allot him an alternate plot of the same importance in the same Scheme i.e. Ist Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur. He has further prayed that the non-petitioner-appellant U.I.T. may be restrained from sanctioning any plot in the Ist Extension, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur in Sector 'A' till the plot is allotted to the petitioner.