- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 20th May, 1997 passed by respondent no. 2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for execution of the lease deed in respect of plot in dispute in his favour. By way of amendment, a further relief of mandamus has also been sought to command the respondents to execute the lease deed for plot no. 105, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) A brief resuming of the fact relating to the writ petition is that pursuant to an advertisement issued by Kanpur Development Authority for auction of three factory plots, namely, 23, 105 and 106 situate in Block-A, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar, the husband of the petitioner was also a bidder. The bid submitted by the husband of the petitioner for plot no. 105 was for a sum of Rs.45828/- at the rate of 36 per sq. mtr. The bids were made on 17.08.1978 and as per the terms and conditions of the bid, husband of the petitioner deposited 1/4th of his bid amount on 17.08.1978. After depositing the aforesaid amount, the respondent put the husband of the petitioner into possession and continuously remained in possession all along and after his death on 19.05.1994, the petitioner is in possession. It has also been pleaded that husband of the petitioner constructed a factory of leather board over the said land and obtained a electricity connection and registered his factory under U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as under Central Sales Tax Act. Though the husband of the petitioner was always willing to pay the balance 3/4th of the bid amount made by him and several requests were made in this regard, but the Development authority neither accepted the balance payment nor executed the lease deed. Aggrieved, the husband of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 43833 of 1992, Abdul Halim Vs. Kanpur Development Authority & Ors., which was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 22.10.1992 giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the Secretary of the Development Authority for executing the lease deed with the direction to the authority to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within two months from the date of receipt of the representation.
(3.) In compliance of the said order, the husband of the petitioner made a representation. However, when no orders were passed, he filed another Writ Petition No. 944 of 1993, wherein an interim mandamus was issued either to comply with the order dated 22.10.1992 or file a counter affidavit. It is alleged that during the pendency of the writ petition, the husband of the petitioner was assured by the respondent authorities that lease deed shall be executed in his favour only if the writ petition is got withdrawn. The husband of the petitioner, accordingly, withdrew the writ petition. In the meantime, husband of the petitioner died on 19.05.1994. The present petitioner after making a representation dated 26.03.1997 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 14155 of 1997 seeking a mandamus to command the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot no. 105. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is alleged that when the petitioner came to know that representation of the petitioner has been rejected, she did not pursue the earlier writ petition and was dismissed in default and the present writ petition has been filed.;