VIJAY KUMAR AND KAMAL KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO Writ Petition Nos. 5190/93 and 5264/93 were decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 13.10.2006. So far as the claim of the petitioners that they purchased the shops of Municipal Council, Sriganganagar in public auction in the year 1976 and respondent Municipal Council could not give possession of those shops to the petitioners and further did not give other shops in lieu of those shops inspite of Municipal Council's resolution dated 22.12.1992, therefore, the petitioners in above two writ petitions are entitled to direction for giving other shops to the petitioners, is concerned, that was found just and legal by the learned Single Judge after holding that the petitioners who are victims of the mistake committed by the Municipal Council cannot be penalized. However, while granting relief to the petitioner of giving alternate property of the same size, i.e. 450 sq.ft. (in each writ petition), the learned Single Judge directed the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar to allot the petitioners one shop each of size 10ft. x 15ft. out of available shops near the Maternity Hospital, Sriganganagar in lieu of the shops which were purchased by the petitioners and that too on payment of difference amount of market price of two properties.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the area of the shops which this Court directed to allot to the petitioners, is much less than the area of the shops which were purchased by the petitioners as back as in the year 1976 and the petitioners paid the full cost for the shops of the size of 450 sq.ft. The petitioners' other grievance is that the respondent Municipal Council is allowed to charge the difference of market price of shops to be allotted to the petitioners and the present market price of old shops. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners cannot be saddled with higher cost of the property when the entire cost of the property has already been taken by the Municipal Council from the petitioners in the year 1976, that too, without giving property. Then Municipal property remained the property of Municipal Council and full market value of the said property was also remained with the Municipal Council and the petitioners were deprived from their money equivalent to price of property and property both, by now, for more than thirty years.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent -Municipal Council, Sriganganagar vehemently submitted that it is not in dispute that the shops were purchased by the petitioners in public auction in the year 1976 but they purchased the shops with open eyes and, therefore, the petitioners were knowing the nature of the property which was put to auction. The learned Counsel for the respondent Municipal Council further submitted that the petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petitions in the year 1993 and, therefore, the petitioners are also guilty of pursuing their remedy after delay.