- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties 2 and 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner, who was allotted House No. M -I/124 under MIG Scheme, namely U.P. Jawahar Vihar Yojna, has approached this Court under Article of the Constitution of India on the ground that the cost of extra land attached to the premises in question has been assessed more than what was existing at the time of allotment of house in the year 1993. It has been stated that the possession of the house under above scheme was given vide letter dated 22.3.1993. Earlier, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition No. 3739(M/B) of 1992 with regard to payment of instalment towards the price of the house. The writ petition was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 22.1.1992 providing that the petitioner was liable to pay balance of the amount in accordance with the original schedule of payment in instalments. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 22.1.1993 is reproduced as under: Having heard the learned Counsel of the parties and having considered their respective contentions, we are of the opinion that since in this case, the only question involved is the payment of the amount by the petitioners to the opposite parties, we dispose of this petition finally by providing that the opposite parties shall deliver possession of the houses to each of the petitioners within a fortnight from today and on possession being delivered to the petitioners, the latter, namely, the petitioners shall make payment of arrears of instalments within six months from the date of delivery of possession, while the balance of the amount shall be paid in accordance with the original schedule of payment in instalments. The petition is disposed of finally in the manner indicated above.
(3.) HOWEVER , it appears that the dispute arose with regard to additional land adjacent to the premises in question. It has been stated that by the impugned notice, the petitioner has been directed to pay certain charges with regard to additional land at the current rate and not on the basis of the cost of land which was prevailing in the year 1993.;