SURAJ PRASAD Vs. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel appealing for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 29.11.2002 and 20.3.2003 whereby the respondents have directed the petitioner to furnish an undertaking to the effect that he will pay the development cost of the leased hold plot pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents in 1980. The petitioner applied for plot in the City Centre of the Bokaro Steel City. The respondents allotted a plot to the petitioner and a lease agreement was executed and registered on 29.3.1993 for a period of 33 years. After the allotment of the plot the petitioner constructed a house as per the plan approved by the respondents and is presently residing and carrying on his business. The petitioners case is that when he asked for completion certificate the respondents insisted for an undertaking to the effect that he will pay the development cost as demanded by the respondents.

(3.) MR . P.K. Sinha learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand beside raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition submitted that the demand of development cost has no concern with the terms and conditions of the lease agreement in as much as the respondents are not changing the premium fixed in the lease agreement. Learned counsel drawn my attention to para 19 of the lease agreement which states inter alia that in case of development of land is to be made the allottee would be to pay the same.