Disposed

Sushma Jindal v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/14762/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allottee of a commercial kiosk defaulted on payment of balance sale price and challenged a demand notice of Rs.31,49,534. The petitioner volunteered to pay outstanding dues; the Court directed clearance within six weeks, failing which the authority may proceed in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to clear entire outstanding amount within six weeks; authority free to proceed per law if unpaid.

Sushma Jindal vs State of Up and 4 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110144-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14762 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sushma Jindal Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra,Ravi Prakash Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.4-Ghaziabad Development Authority.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner with the following reliefs:-

¶8

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and quash the letter cum demand notice dated 23.11.2023 issued by the respondent no.04 asking the petitioner and the respondent no.05 to pay/deposit a sum of Rs.31,49,534.00;

¶9

(ii) Issue an writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.04 not to proceed any further and to issue a citation to the revenue authorities for recovery of the amount shown in letter cum demand notice dated 23.11.2023 without first providing the complete details of the accounts and reconciliation of the account taking into consideration of the claim and representation of the petitioner against the correctness of the demand;"

¶10

The petitioner, who was the highest bidder for commercial kiosk bearing Plot no.RK-22 (area 8.11 square metre). In view of confirmation letter, the rate of commercial plot was fixed Rs.2,11,500/- per square metre. Admittedly, in terms of allotment letter, initially the petitioner had deposited 25% of the total sale price and rest of the amount in due course on being asked. However, the petitioner made default in payment of the rest amount. Now, he has approached this Court questioning the validity of impugned demand notice dated 23.11.2023 issued by fourth respondent asking the petitioner and respondent no.5 to deposit Rs.31,49,534.

¶11

Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.4 has placed a detailed instructions, wherein calculation has been furnished regarding dues of the property in question. On the basis of said instructions, it is claimed that outstanding amount is Rs.32,72,898 upto 31.05.2024. He raised an objection that in terms of allotment letter, the parties were in default, hence, outstanding demand has been raised by the impugned notice, which requires no intervention under writ jurisdiction as the contractual terms and conditions cannot be altered. However, he apprises the Court that till date no third party interest has been created over the property in question.

¶12

When confronted with this situation, on the basis of instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to clear the outstanding amount in respect of property in question in case some breathing time is accorded.

¶13

In view of aforesaid factual situation that the petitioner has himself volunteered to clear the outstanding amount in terms of the calculation furnished along with the instructions received by learned counsel for respondent no.4 and in view of the fact that till date no third party right has been created over the property in question, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction that the entire outstanding amount shall be cleared by the petitioner within six weeks from today, failing which the respondent authority will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Manish Himwan

¶15

Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushma Jindal v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Jindal v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Bhal vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Ss Associates vs State of Up and 4 Others

Golden Food Products India vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ms Priya Jain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Baba Ananadeshwar Travels and Another vs State of Up and 4 Others

M/S Bharat Store Ltd. Agra vs State of U.P and 4 Others