Veeramati v. Permanent Lok Adalat And Another
!"
#$
"%&'&#() *
+
, - ,
, ,
. +./
. .
) 0, . +
.
+
.
/
,
! "#""#"$
% &'(
)* , -$) .* (
* ) +
&/ *
- - $/ * .
) 0 +
* ! ( + "##1##2& )* !
* ++ 3 commercial site bearing No.DSS-55 measuring 75.625 Square Meter, situated in F Block, Mandi Township, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, was earlier allotted to one Sh. Subhash Mehta but the said site was resumed by the respondents-HSVP. Thereafter, in a fresh open auction, it was allotted in favour of petitioner for a sum of Rs.40,10,000/- vide Memo No. 5081 dated 01.04.2010. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the sale consideration was to be deposited in eight installments along with interest thereon. A sum of Rs.4,01,000/- and an amount of Rs.6,01,500/- respectively was deposited by the petitioner on 15.03.2010 and on 30.04.2010 respectively being 10% and 15% of total cost of said site.
It is averred that the petitioner approached the respondents repeatedly to rectify their record so that the name of the petitioner could be reflected as the new allottee of the site in compliance of the letter of allotment dated 01.04.2010 so that she could deal with the property in any manner as she liked, however, the respondents failed to update their record. When the petitioner went to the office of respondents-HSVP, to deposit the balance amount, the same was not accepted since the plot did not exist in her name. Even as on 26.11.2015, and as per the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the respondents continued to reflect the ownership of the prior allottee Sh. Subhash Mehta to whom the allotment had been made on 25.01.2007 and had been resumed.
1
Specific attention is also drawn to the allottee account statement dated 23.12.2015 obtained from the respondent-HSVP which reflects the total price of the property as Rs.39,50,000.00/- with the date of allotment as 25.01.2007. Further, the said statement of account also reflects the outstanding delay interest and possession interest as Rs.28,49,299.00 and 4,71,007.00 making the total outstanding as Rs.62.82 lakhs approximately. It is contended that the respondents did not carry out correction in their record and reflected the name of the former allottee in their account statement and were charging delay interest without considering that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was made on 01.04.2010. The account statement reflected outstanding delay payment interest for the period of 2007, 2008 and 2009 as well.
It is argued that the petitioner could neither further sell the property nor obtain loan for making payment for the same and also could not deposit the further payments due to records not being kept properly. The status of the petitioner as an allottee was thus continuously suspected. No heed was paid by the respondentHSVP to the requests of the petitioner. Being harassed by the attitude of the respondents, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 seeking refund of the deposited amount.
The respondent-HSVP entered appearance and raised objections including that the application in question was not maintainable
*
and that the petitioner only deposited one installment of Rs.1,98,000/- on 22.12.2014 and no further installment was deposited thereafter. An application for surrender of the plot was later moved by the petitioner on 27.09.2015 but an amount of Rs.52,49,481/- was due as on 24.02.2016 against her as per record of the respondent Department. The other factual assertions were not in dispute, however, it is submitted that the plot in question did not reflect the name of earlier allottee. 1
+) + & $5( $6( ,
"'6
) - )* , -$).* (
! + + 7 $'( ,
"'6! - 8
)+
& ,
"'6! +
)* , -$).* (
! "#""#")* ) &
!
""
#
!
"" $
%
&'!( )*!( *+% +'% ,
!
"" $
"
-
.
/!
""
$
/
/01 !
"" $
& $
2
3 4 6 !
)* , - $).* (
!
)
' ,
)* , - $) .* (
+ *
+
+! *+ ) + !
* 19 + "'###2&
) + !
:! ! ! *
+ / ! * ; ) )* ) ) /
+ $
% &8( ! )+
)* + 0+) #"1 ! **+ * ##6 ##' ## < + *+ +)*
+#"# #"5!
!
+ + )*
< ! + ) )*
!
+- ) *+
)
+
+ !
+
&/
)+
) * + *+
+ <
*+
+ =
+ + "#9 + ! )* "19 + ) ! "1 * ) *) !)**+ "'###2& !
) )
+/ )+ !
&/ ! * )) < + #1#5 ) )* ! !
+ !
! * + "#
+ ) "" :
+ ! ! )
" /
) :+ , -$).* ( ) )
< - + * * ) <
- ! ! + ! * + !
!
+
:! !
2
- ! )+ )* = ) #"1 + "6 / * .
) 0 + "66 ) )*
!
+ !
:
"6$"($( !
#'#"##+
)
, - $) .* ( * #"1 4 ! )* *
; )* : + )
)
* )
) +
*
:
! &/
+ )* = ) #"1
) )* )+ 5 + !
& 5
$
&)*!(
# %*6
!
+
7 #
8 1
"
# "
6
4 "> ?
+ )
"#9 )+ *! + * *
+ 19: )+
- + * 19 + * ) )
)
< !
+ "#9 +
) !
)
! )! -
+ % "#9 )+ * "6 /.0 "66$ !/ "66(
!
+* ) ) % *
<
* % ) !&
9: .
#
* 8 1
;
9%:
8 1
#
9+:,
( 9%:
8 1
;
9':
( 9+:
8 1
#
( 9+:
9*:
8 1 )
2
</
2
;
9):
2
9=:
2
;
8 1
# </
2
>
9?:
2
( 9):
"
@
2 /
</
"
@
2 /
;
9A: "
@
2 /
</
"
@
2 /
4 "5 :
+ ) + "66 * !
*
+- *+ *
+ * *
+ * ) ) +*)
! )* 4 =
!
! ** !
* *!
% +
+
) + +
) * ) + 4 =
+*
) !
+- + * + + * ! *
))*
! +*)
"1 :
+ * )
5 + !
)+ ) )! +
+ !
"#9+ )+ *
1
)
;
!
+ * *) )+)* )
"6 $"( $!
+ (
*% )
)* !
* *+ ; ! ) ; ) )+ !
+
; < *! ) * +
) !
+ "8 : , -$).* (
* + )* : ! ; +
< *
"6 ! +
+ !
) -
)* , - $).* (
- !
* "6 ,
* * )
) :
!
+ )
=
*
)
* ) % < *! + ! )
+ * +
* + * * * +
* / "' < , -$).* ( *
+ < !
++ & * < ) + "##1##2& ! @ "#9
+
+ % * ># *
+ )+
- )
+ , ) + ) ! #>+
* !
)) * @"9
+ < )* +
* &/ - * !+*)
+
$ ( ! ! " < ! * ."3!"45"6 /
*
$+
.
6 7 6#6
.
# !
<5 !B .
<5 !B