SHEIKH FEROZ AHMAD Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS.
LAWS(J&K)-2020-2-90
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 26,2020

Sheikh Feroz Ahmad Appellant
VERSUS
Union Territory Of JAndK And Ors. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM AND SHYAM COMPANY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner challenges notice dated 25th of January, 2020, issued by Director Land Management, Srinagar Development Authority. The notice informs the petitioner that he had failed to deposit the outstanding amount on account of premium, rentals and interest in regard to the Restaurant/Mezzanine which was allotted to the petitioner in Sangarmall City Centre in the year 2011.
(2.)Briefly stated the material facts are as under
(i) The petitioner's bid was found to be the highest in regard to the allotment of Restaurant space in Sangarmall City Centre in the year 2011. The petitioner was required to deposit 50% of the total premium of Rs.3,22,46,650/ within 15 days from the issuance of letter of intent and the remaining 50% within 30 days thereafter.

(ii) Whereas 50% amount was deposited by the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,50,00,000/ as premium, the balance petitioner failed to deposit. In this regard, a notice was issued by Director, Land Management, Srinagar Development Authority, dated 12th of October, 2011, asking the petitioner to deposit the balance amount. This was followed by another communication dated 9th of January, 2012.

(iii) The petitioner appears to have responded to communication dated 9th of January, 2012, by seeking monthly instalments in regard to the balance payment.

(iv) Vide communication dated 17th of July, 2012, Deputy Director, Land Management, Srinagar Development Authority, requested the petitioner to deposit the balance amount within 15 days failing which he was informed that the space would be re-auctioned and earnest money forfeited.

(v) To cut long story short, the balance amount has not been deposited by the petitioner till date on which the respondents are now claiming interest as well. The petitioner also appears to have defaulted on the payment of rentals.

(3.)In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner filed OWP No.942/2016, in which he challenged notices dated 17th of April, 2014 and 28th of April, 2016, asking the petitioner to deposit the balance payment. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 3rd of June, 2016, directed that the notice dated 28th of April, 2016 be kept in abeyance.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.