SATISH CHANDRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri U.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.N.Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri K.S.Pawar, for opposite-parties.
(2.) THE petitioners have alleged that petitioner no.1 is a registered partnership firm which has authorised petitioner no.2 to file the instant writ petition on its behalf. The petitioners have further alleged that Plot Nos.24/CP 101 and 24/GH 102 situated at Indira Nagar Colony of U.P., Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Parishad') were auctioned on 30.06.1994 and their bids being the highest were accepted by the Parishad. The petitioners have further alleged that as there was some confusion with regard to the payment of balance amount of bids, the bids made by the petitioners for both the plots were cancelled by separate orders dated 15.9.1994 passed by opposite-parties 2 to 4. The said orders were challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No.3802 (MB) of 1994 and Writ Petition No. 3803 (MB) of 1994 and during the pendency of the said writ petitions the Deputy Housing Commissioner issued the order dated 12.07.1995 by which the offers of the petitioners were revived. The petitioners have further alleged that between 12.07.1995 and 28.01.1997 several orders were issued by the Parishad and ultimately on 28.01.1997 allotment letters in respect to Plot Nos. 24/CP 101 and 24/GH 102 were issued, which also contains the mode of payment of the balance amount, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures No.3 and 4 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further alleged that as actual area of the plots on spot was less, revised allotment letters dated 8.10.1998 and 17.10.1998 were issued in respect to Plot Nos. 24/CP 101 and 24/GH 102, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures No.9 and 10 to the writ petition. The petitioners have further alleged that in respect to Plot No.24/CP 101 Higher Purchase Agreement was executed between the petitioners and opposite party no.4 on 8.10.1998 and in respect to Plot No.24/GH 102 the Higher Purchase Agreement between the parties was executed on 26.10.1998 and as per the Higher Purchase Agreement the date for depositing of first instalment was to start from one year after the completion of the development work. The petitioners have also alleged that possession of Plot No.24/CP 101 was given on 16.10.1998 and that of Plot No.24/GH 102 was given on 28.10.1998 by the Executive Engineer of the Parishad. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the development work was not completed by the Parishad and they were compelling the petitioners to pay the balance amount with 18% interest, the petitioners approached to the State Government and thereafter opposite-party no.1 through communication dated 20.11.2006 directed the opposite-party no.3 that according to the advice of the Law Department the development work will be treated as final only after the completion of road, water, sewer and electrification work of the area. He further submits that in compliance of the communication dated 20.11.2006, the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has taken a decision on 4.12.2006, according to which, 7th December, 2002 is the date of completion of electricity work in the area along with other development works. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that up to 29th June, 2002, the petitioner has deposited Rs. 33,41,603/- against 85% of the amount in respect to Plot No. 24/CP 101 and a sum of Rs. 16,59,430/- was deposited by the petitioner on 29th June, 2002 in respect to Plot No. 24/GH 102 against 85% of the amount and as such the petitioners are entitled for the interest on the said amount.
(3.) SRI J.N.Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri K.S.Pawar, for the opposite-parties submits that the petitioners were required to deposit 85% of the cost of plots in instalment with 18% interest from the date of allotment as per clause II of the Hire Purchase Agreement. He further submits that the amount deposited by the petitioners in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement has been adjusted against the instalments. He further submits that as the petitioner could not deposit the entire 85% amount within the time prescribed, the impugned orders dated 30.12.2006 were issued against the petitioners and there is no illegality in the impugned orders.;