High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Kumkum Sharma v. State Of U.P. Through It'S Secretary Land & Another - WRIT - C No. 35129 of 2007  RD-AH 13434 (2 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.35129 of 2007
Smt. Kumkum Sharma
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner, an allottee of a residential plot in Greater Noida, has assailed the order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida (hereinafter called the ''Authority'), rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner in furtherance of the order dated 21.01.2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3832 of 2007.
As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for a residential plot on 17.03.1988 and an amount of Rs.40,000/- was deposited with the Oriental Bank of Commerce. After depositing the said amount, a plot measuring 200 sq. meters was allotted in her favour as a result of draw of lots. It appears that the petitioner could not complete the formalities required under the allotment order and could not deposit the enhanced price of the plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted her consent letter on 25.06.1998. The Authority had sent the allotment order by registered post on 20.11.1998 requiring the allottee to deposit the amount towards price of plot, i.e. Rs. 1,04,000/- by 04.01.1999 and thereafter, she was required to pay quarterly instalments of Rs. 42,000/- in eight instalments. The petitioner failed to deposit the amount and, thus, violated the condition No. F-5 of the brochure, which required the allottee to make regular payment of the instalments. The petitioner was sent a written notice on 12.06.2006 to this effect.
The case of the Greater Noida is that since the petitioner failed to fulfill the condition contained in the allotment order/brochure and could not deposit the instalments, the price of the plot, her allotment was rightly cancelled.
The petitioner's learned counsel tried to cover up the period of inaction on the part of the petitioner submitting that the petitioner had been regularly sending letters under postal certificate to the concerned authorities of Greater Noida indicating the change of address and since she had changed her residence, the earlier letters issued by the Authority could not be received by her and she was desirous of taking the plot. She sent several letters from 21.01.2000 to 21.12.2006 under postal certificate. The said letters were not received in the office of the Greater Noida. It was the duty of Greater Noida Authority to have kept the allottee informed of the status of the plot and the amount required to be paid by the petitioner in furtherance of finalisation of allotment.
Here is a case where the petitioner herself submitted her consent for inclusion of her name in the draw of lots. She had agreed to pay the enhanced rate of Rs. 2400/- per sq. meters and she had also deposited the advance as required by the Authority. When the petitioner was desirous for allotment of plot, she ought to have kept in touch with the Authorities of Greater Noida, like other diligent applicants for allotment. From the chronology of events, it appears that the petitioner had not been diligent enough to pursue her matter. According to her, she had been sending letters from time to time, i.e. from 1998 to 2006 and that too under postal certificate. Since she was an applicant, she could have contacted the Authority, if she was not getting any response. However, this element of due diligence is absent in the present case. Inaction on the part of the petitioner for such a long time makes her disentitled for allotment and, therefore, we do not find any fault with the impugned order. There is also nothing on record to demonstrate that she had indicated her correct address and got it recorded in the official record of the Greater Noida. As per terms and conditions contained in the brochure and her allotment letter, it was the duty of the applicant or allottee to remain in touch with the concerned Authority of Greater Noida. The petitioner had no right to claim allotment of plot at old rates. The scheme of 12th June, 2000 has already come to an end after two years, i.e. by 2002.
In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to have a plot at the current rate. However, the said submission on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently been opposed by the Shri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Authority submitting that the scheme stood exhausted and the said course is not permissible under the present policy, and in view thereof, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court.
Accordingly, no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is totally misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.