PREMLATA Vs. GOVT OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was allotted by the respondent, a plot of land bearing the No. A-33 Bassi Sitarampura, Jaipur measuring 388.8 square yards vide letter dated 9.1.1962 (Annex. 1) on paying the price at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square yard and vide order dated 9.7.1977 (Annex. 11) the petitioner was informed that it had been decided to charge the price at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard and that he was required to pay to the respondent the sum of Rs. 9 /- per square yard as the difference in the price payable at the revised rate. Vide letter dated 22.7.1977 (Annex. 12), the petitioner replied that the extra amount could not be demanded from her. No further reply thereto was sent to the petitioner by the respondent who vide letter dated 24.8.1984 (Annex. 13) informed the petitioner that the allotment of the plot in her favour had been cancelled and demanded that the possession thereof be given by the petitioner to the respondent within 30 days thereafter. The petitioner there upon served notice dated 5.9.1984 (Annex. 14) and thereafter approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency of the writ petition the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority withdrew the letter dated 24th Aug., 1984 (Annex. 13) and thereupon the writ petition was amended by the petitioner challenging the demand at the higher rate being pursued by the respondent, Jaipur Development Authority. The writ petition has been opposed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. The only contention raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot in dispute had been sold to the petitioner after being allotted in the year 1962 at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square yard and the respondent had no authority to increase its price and to demand back its possession on non-payment of the enhanced price after the lapse of so much period from the date of allotment/possession. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out to me any provision of law or rule under which the respondent has such power to increase the price of land in dispute after it had been allotted by sale to the petitioner who had been put in possession thereof and who is also stated to have constructed a house thereon, after obtaining the permission from respondent, Jaipur Development Authority. The order enhancing the rate, therefore, cannot be allowed to operate and consequently the decision of the Jaipur Development Authority communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.9.1977 (Annex. 11) and a similar decision dated 10.9.1984 communicated to her vide Annex. R/1 are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, assessed at Rs. 1000 / Petition Allowed.