Anjana Saraiya vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

Anjana Saraiya ...Appellant

Versus

The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ ­ C

No.56136 of 2006 by which the High Court has

dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the

appellant herein, the original writ petitioner has

preferred the present appeal.

2. The appellant herein, a lady of about 55 years, was

Signature Not Verified allotted a residential property being Plot No.415 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.05.12 15:53:54 IST

admeasuring 150 square meters in Organized Reason:

1

Development Scheme, Phase­III, Pilkhuwa, District –

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh by the respondents under

the category of Middle­Income Group. After being

successful in the draw of lots, the appellant was

allotted the said plot at a price of Rs.2,70,000/­. That

the appellant herein made an upfront payment of

Rs.94,500/­ in the year 2003 itself and thereafter paid

the first three instalments regularly and in time.

However, thereafter there was a default in making the

payment of installment nos. 4 to 7. According to the

appellant due to the continuous ill­health of her

husband she was in a financial crisis due to which

she was unable to deposit the remaining instalments.

That the petitioner was served with a notice dated

14.06.2006 from the Office of Municipal Council

which, according to the appellant was served on her

on 19.06.2006 by which the appellant was informed

that due to non­deposit of the instalments of the

balance amount the allotment has been cancelled.

However, according to the appellant, even before the

said notice was served upon her, she managed to

2 secure the money from her relatives and deposited the

balance amount with interest i.e. Rs.1,39,000/­ on

16.06.2006. Out of payment of Rs.1,39,000/­ on

16.06.2006, an amount of Rs.1,04,128/­ (for last four

instalments) was towards principal amount and

Rs.34,872/­ was towards interest amount.

Thus, as on 16.06.2006 the appellant deposited

the entire amount and cleared all the instalments

along with the interest. Thereafter the appellant

herein, the allottee, filed the writ petition before the

High Court and prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter/notice/order dated 14.06.2006 against the allotment of Plot No.415, issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to initiate any proceedings against the Plot No.415 of the petitioner in pursuance of letter/notice/order dated 14.06.2006 issued by respondent no.3.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the

3 registration proceedings and also direct the respondents not to allot the aforesaid plot No.415 to any other person except to the petitioner.”

2.1 That pursuant to the interim order passed by the High

Court the appellant deposited a further sum of

Rs.50,000/­ on 21.11.2006. Therefore, by the time

the petition was heard by the High Court, against the

total value of the plot i.e. 2,70,000/­, the appellant

deposited a total sum of Rs.3,84,546/­ (including

interest). By the impugned judgment and order, the

High Court has dismissed the said writ petition solely

on the ground and by observing that the appellant did

not fulfil the terms and conditions as provided under

the Scheme and did not deposit the instalments

regularly and as and when due and payable, therefore

the authorities were within their rights to cancel the

allotment. At this stage, it is required to be noted that

in the meantime and on cancellation of the allotment

the respondents refunded the entire money after

deducting 20% of the deposited amount which was

sent to the appellant through cheque which is not

4 encashed by the appellant. By the impugned

judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the

writ petition which has given rise to the present

appeal.

3. Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Advocate appearing

on behalf of the appellant has submitted that as such

against the total sale consideration of Rs.2,70,000/­,

by now the appellant has deposited a total sum of

Rs.3,84,546/­ (including interest) which is lying with

the respondent.

3.1 It is submitted that as such there was no deliberate

and/or willful default on the part of the appellant in

not depositing the instalments regularly as and when

due and payable. It is submitted that due to the ill­

health of her husband and she, being in financial

difficulty, could not make the deposit of instalments in

time. It is submitted that over and above the amount

of Rs.50,000/­ which has been deposited by the

appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by the

High Court, the appellant was ready and willing to pay

5 Rupees two lakhs for the compensation for the delayed

payment. It is submitted that even as of now also the

appellant is ready and willing to deposit a further sum

of Rs.2 lakhs towards the compensation for the

delayed payment and/or to regularize the payment of

instalments.

4. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, appearing

on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Shri

Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned Senior Advocate,

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 have

supported the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court.

4.1 It is submitted that under the Scheme and as per the

allotment letter the appellant was required to deposit

the amount of instalments regularly and as and when

due and payable. It is submitted that after the first

three instalments were paid, the appellant did not

make the payment of the next four instalments and

therefore the authority was well within its right to

cancel the allotment. It is submitted that thereafter

6 having found that the appellant had not made the

payment of the instalments regularly and as and when

due and payable the allotment was cancelled. It is

submitted that the High Court has rightly dismissed

the writ petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective

parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case,

we are of the opinion that if on payment of a further

sum of Rs.2 lakhs towards the compensation for the

delayed payment of instalments, the account of the

appellant be regularized and the allotment made

under the Middle­Income Scheme in favour of the

appellant who is a lady can be saved.

5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted and it is not in

dispute that at the time of allotment, the appellant

made the upfront payment of Rs.94,500/­ and

thereafter made payment towards the first three

instalments. However, thereafter because of the ill­

health of her husband she was in financial difficulty

and therefore she could not make the payment of the

7 remaining four instalments which she made on

16.06.2006 with interest. The aforesaid payments

show her bonafides and that there was no deliberate,

willful delay on the part of the appellant in not making

the payment of instalments in time. Even thereafter

the appellant has deposited a further sum of

Rs.50,000/­ pursuant to the interim order passed by

the High Court and therefore by now the appellant has

deposited a total sum of Rs.3,84,546/­ (including

interest) against the total value/cost of Rs.2,70,000/­.

Therefore, now when the appellant is ready and willing

to pay a further sum of Rupees two lakhs towards

compensation for the delay in making the payment of

instalments, we are of the opinion that the offer made

by the appellant is a fair offer and by which, allotment

of plot in favour of a lady which is made under the

Middle­Income Group Scheme and the plot being still

vacant and not allotted to any other person, the order

of cancellation may be set aside.

8

6. In view of the above and for the reason stated above,

the present appeal is allowed. On payment of a further

sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees Two Lakhs) to be

deposited in favour of the respondent within six weeks

from today, the impugned judgment and order passed

by the High Court is set aside. Consequently, the

order dated 14.06.2006 cancelling the allotment of the

plot in question is hereby quashed and set aside. On

payment of a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees

Two Lakhs) within the time stipulated hereinabove,

the respondents are directed to hand over the vacant

possession of the plot in question to the appellant and

execute the necessary documents, if any, required to

be executed within a period of four weeks thereafter.

Present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

There is no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, May 12, 2022.

9