Allahabad High Court
Smt. Surendra Mohini Dhawan vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 July, 2010
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41520 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Surendra Mohini Dhawan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.K. Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Vivek Varma Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel fo the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh appearing for the respondents.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 31st May, 2008. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to take the steps for free-hold of the Plot No.445, L-Block, Kakadeo, Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was alloted the plot in question by order dated 8th February, 1983. It is submitted that petitioner deposited the necessary amount but the possession was not given. It is further submitted that several letters were written by the petitioner for giving possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the letter submitted by the petitioner on different dates from the year 1983 to 1993.
The petitioner herself has filed copy of the possession memo dated 26th August, 1994 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), which clearly mentions that petitioner has taken possession on 9th August, 1994. The said possession memo has been signed by the petitioner with the boundaries mentioned therein. The petitioner thereafter has been issued notice which is impugned in this writ petition.
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount in the notice dated 31st May, 2008 has been demanded in accordance with Section 18(4-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 since the petitioner did not make any construction within the stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner was not given possession and a suit was also filed by one Rama Kant, which was dismissed in the year 2004.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner herself having filed the possession memo taking possession, which contains her signature, she cannot be heard in saving that possession was not given. The letters, which have been relied by the petitioner, were the letters issued earlier to get the possession. The petitioner herself has written a letter to the Kanpur Development Authority on 9th December, 1993 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition), which indicates that the petitioner has come to know that unauthorised possession has been removed and prayed that registered document may be issued in her favour. Subsequent to the said letter registered deed was executed and possession was given. Insofar as the amount under the notice is concerned, the said notice has been issued under Section 18(4-A) of the 1973 Act and no exception can be taken to the said notice. We do not find any error in the impugned notice which may warrant interference by this Court. However, in case petitioner deposits the amount as demanded by the impugned notice, the respondents may consider the application of the petitioner for free hold in accordance with law.
Subject to above observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2010 Rakesh