Vasumatiben M. Rathod and Others vs Mamlatdar and Special Recovery Officer and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the Notice dated 06.11.1997 issued by respondent No. 1, whereby respondent No. 1 had directed the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 26,182/ - towards unpaid dues.

The short facts of the case are that the petitioners are the members and are occupying their respective houses and shops constructed on land bearing Survey No. 508, in the first phase of Vibhavari Co-operative Housing Society, since 01.11.1970. It is the case of the petitioners that for the purpose of constructing their houses and/or shops on land bearing Survey No. 508, the members of the Vibhavari Co-operative Society applied to the Gujarat Housing Finance Corporation-respondent No. 2 herein through proper channel for the sanction of loan to the tune of Rs. 6,46,000/ -. On 10.10.1969, respondent No. 2 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,46,000/ - for constructing the houses in the first phase of land bearing Survey No. 508. Pursuant to the sanctioned order dated 10.10.1969, the petitioner-Society vide communication dated 16.10.1969 requested respondent No. 3 to release the loan amount to the petitioners for construction of their houses. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 released a loan amount of Rs. 6,43,996/ - to the members of the petitioner-Society for construction of 37 houses. Pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs. 6,33,000/ - was credited in the account of respondent No. 3 towards the loan given to the members of the petitioner-Society for construction of their houses on land bearing Survey No. 508 in the first phase. Thus, the amount of loan was repaid by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 in the year 1997 and thereafter, the petitioners continued to pay regularly the amount of installments to respondent No. 2. On 06.11.1997, respondent No. 1 issued Notice directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs. 26,182 towards unpaid dues. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record, it transpires that the decree passed against the petitioner has not been challenged by the respondent. Apart from that it appears that some of the members of the petitioner-Society have paid the amount of loan way back in the year 1992 in order to avoid any complication in the future. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the fact the notice is issued after following due process of law, the members of the petitioner-Society who had not paid the dues shall pay the same to the respondent. Thus, the members who have not paid the dues shall prefer an application before the concerned authority requesting them that they are prepared to pay the dues in twelve equal monthly installments. Thus, it is observed that the members of the petitioner Society who have not paid the dues shall pay the same in twelve equal monthly installments w.e.f 01.10.2010. Until the amount as aforesaid is paid by the members of the petitioner Society, the respondent shall not execute the recovery certificate. It is, however, made clear that if no such application as aforesaid is made by the members who had not paid the dues and / or if the members of the petitioner-Society fails to make payment within the period stipulated herein above, the concerned authority shall execute the recovery certificate.

With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.