CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Tej Narayan Chaudhary vs U.P.Avas Avam Vikas Parishad Through Commissioner and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 April 2010 · Citation: (2010) 04 AHC CK 0210

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.H.Zaidi, J and Prakash Chandra Verma, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Bench No. 4975 of 2004
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 402 words

Prakash Chandra Verma and S.N.H. Zaidi, JJ.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allot the plot No. 10B/337 in Vrindavan Yojana2 at the rates prevailing in the year 1996.

2.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was allotted a piece of land under Lohia Nagar Scheme, but he could not deposit the installments in time as a result of which the allotment was cancelled in the year 1984 and the same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 103 (MB) of 1991 and it was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.1996 with the direction that in case the petitioner deposits Rs. 7256.55 paisa along with current rate of registration fee, the respondents will revive the application for registration of the petitioner and give him preference in the matter of allotment of a plot in any other scheme, preferably in Indira Nagar and Vikas Nagar, provided he agrees to pay the current price.

He further submits that despite all formalities and the order of this Court, respondents did not allot the plot in question in favour of the petitioner rather compelling the petitioner to pay the cost of the plot at the present rate in utter disregard to the order passed by this Court without any fault on the part of the petitioner.

3.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

4.

Perusal of record shows that the reasons for cancellation of allotment are that the petitioner had failed to deposit the instalments for allotment of the plot in question as per the terms and conditions of the Housing Board which provides that in case petitioner fails to deposit all the instalments it shall be open for the Housing Board to cancel the allotment as per conditions of the allotment order.

5.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice to the merits of the case, we do not find any fault with the cancellation order, however, since this Court while entertaining this writ petition has reserved a plot in favour of the petitioner, therefore we direct the Housing Board to consider and make fresh allotment in favour of the petitioner keeping in view the earlier decisions.

6.

With aforesaid direction the writ petition is finally disposed of.