Allahabad High Court
Central Government Employees Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 3 February, 2010
Bench: Amitava Lala, S.N.H. Zaidi
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53567 of 2008
Petitioner :- Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organization
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Yashwant Verma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Kumar,R.P. Singh
Hon'ble Amitava Lala,J.
Hon'ble S.N.H. Zaidi,J.
There is a judgement of Division Bench of this Court dated 17th November, 2006 in C.M. Writ Petition No. 48907 of 2006, where under the claim of the Authority concerned was quashed in view of the following orders:-
"In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the entire amount to the tune of Rs. 12 Crore has been deposited by the petitioner, in time, and the dispute was only in respect of the stamp duty for which thee had always been willingness of the petitioner Society, even to pay as per the demand made by the respondent, as is evident from their letter dated 27th April, 2006 (Annexure 21 tot he writ petition), and taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors (2004)2 SCC 130, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that cancellation of allotment in such circumstances is a harsh decision for the allottee, as substantial amount has been paid by the petitioner, we are of the view that it is in the interest of justice that the respondent Authority may issue a demand note for the stamp duty along with format of the lease deed to the present petitioner and if the petitioner undertakes to deposit the said amount within one week after receiving the notice then the lease deed may be executed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
In view of the above, the petitioner succeeds and is allowed and impugned order dated 30th August, 2006 is hereby quashed."
We have gone through paragraph 42 of the referred judgement reported in {(2004)2 Supreme Court Cases 130} wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that in a situation of this nature, having regard to the rival claims made by the parties, if the default is not absolutely wilful or a dishonest one but occasioned due to a situation which may be beyond one's control, the statutory right of the respondent in resuming the land may not be appropriate, if the entire dues stand discharged. Recently in 2008 another judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court cases 38( Jagmohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others) taking the similar view.
Therefore, propriety demands that the order impugned which has been passed hereunder should be quashed and accordingly quashed. The Authority concerned is directed to consider the case and complete the exercise within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order positively. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 Muk