Tarun Agarwala - (1.) THE father of the petitioner was the owner of various plots, measuring approximately 27,292 sq. mtrs., which is situate in village Lahartara, pargana Dehat Amanat, district Varanasi, which was being used for agricultural purposes. THE petitioner's father indicated his intention to develop the land as a residential colony, and consequently, applied before the Varanasi Development Authority under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the development of the land in question. THE Authority, by its order dated 3rd December, 1987, granted permission to develop the land and sanctioned a lay out plan. On 9th of June, 1988, an agreement was executed between the petitioner, his father, and other brothers with the Varanasi Development Authority in which it was agreed that the owners would carry out the development of the lay out plan in accordance with the approved lay out of the area, standards and specifications, to the satisfaction of the Authority, giving adequate security for the due performance of the agreement. It was agreed that the owners would carry out the complete development of the area within one year from the date of the permission and that the internal development would be carried out in accordance with the specifications and designs laid down by the authority and that a completion certificate would be obtained from the Varanasi Development Authority after its development. In the agreement, it was further provided that the land that was set apart for the road, public parks and other public utility services, etc., would be handed over to the Government free from all encumbrances after the completion certificate was obtained, and that, before the transfer of the plot by way of sale, lease gift, etc., the owners would incorporate such terms and conditions as the Authority may prescribe.
(2.) THE agreement further provided that in case of any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Authority would forfeit the security deposit and may direct any agency to carry out the development, and that the Authority would recover such charges which it would incur in the development of the land or the Authority itself could undertake the development and recover the charges from the owners. In the agreement, the owners were also required to furnish a security for carrying out the internal development. THE agreement indicated that the owners were required to furnish a bank guarantee of 125% of the total development cost, which amounted to Rs. 13,04,862, and was also required to submit a security by way of mortgage which was equivalent to 125% of the value of the internal cost of the development. The petitioner's father submitted a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,26,216 and a simple mortgage was also created on certain plots which was equal to 125% of the internal cost of the development. This mortgage was to be discharged upon grant of a no objection certificate from the Authority. Under clause (3) of the agreement, the petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs. 1,20,342.50 towards external development cost which development was to be carried out by the authority. Under clause (8) of the agreement, any dispute or difference arising out of the agreement was to be referred to the sole arbitrator nominated by the Secretary to the Government. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner, his father and the brothers were required to carry out the development of the land within one year, that is, on or before 9th of June, 1989. It is alleged that before the development could start, the petitioner's father died, and on account of financial constraints, the project of the development of the land was abandoned. Consequently, no internal development took place on the land in question, nor the Authority carried out any external development. The lay out plan sanctioned by the Authority lapsed after the expiry of the stipulated period under the agreement.
(3.) AFTER almost 10 years, a notice dated 18th of August, 1998 was issued under Section 33 of the Act directing the petitioner to show cause why development had not taken place pursuant to the sanction granted by the Authority and agreement entered between the parties. Pursuant to the said notice, the Authority passed an order dated 14th January, 1999 for the recovery of Rs. 13,04,862 which amount was towards the total cost for the internal development and further directed the Tehsildar to attach and auction the plots which had been mortgaged under the agreement. The Authority, while passing the order for the recovery of the amount, found that as per physical inspection made on the spot, no internal development was carried out by the petitioner and that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and that the bank guarantee given by the petitioner's father had also lapsed. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision under Section 41 (3) of the Act which was dismissed by an order dated 9th August, 1999 as not maintainable. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to state here that before the revisional authority, respondent No. 12 Awadhesh Kumar Rai filed an impleadment application alleging that the petitioner had not developed the land and that it was the duty of the Authority to ensure that the land was developed as per the sanctioned lay out plan and agreement entered between the parties, and therefore, prayed that the petitioner, or the authority be directed to develop the land. The said respondent alleged that his predecessor had purchased two plots vide a sale deed dated 25.5.1992 and 26.8.1992, and thereafter, had constructed a house.;