- (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to command the Ghaziabad Development Authority to hand over pos session of a residential plot under category A' in Vaishali Housing Scheme 1985 im mediately to him.
(2.) THE petitioner asserts that even though he had paid necessary amounts to the Respondent-Ghaziabad Development Authority it is acting arbitrarily in not handing over possession of the premises after completing the formalities. In support of his claim the petitioner has appended as Annexure-4 a certificate dated 7-9-87 granting by or on behalf of The Oriental Bank of Com merce, Branch Ghaziabad which reads thus: "rzp/misc. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERn This is to certify that a Pay Order No. 1028/86 dated 23-10-86 for Rs. 33,410 (Rupees Thirty-three thousand four hundred and ten only) fvg. "vice Chairman-Ghaziabad Develop ment Authority a/c Rajiv Chaudhary was issued by us to the debit of CA-375 of M/s. Chaudhary and Sons (Forgings) Pvt. Ltd. vide their cheque No. 024268 dated 23-10-86 for Rs. 33, 410. The Ghaziabad Development Authority stated in its Supplementary Counter Affidavit that a zerox copy of the document appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition was placed by the Respon dent before the Oriental Bank of Com merce ; that the Bank certified that Pay Order No. 1028/86 dated 23- 10-86 for Rs. 33,410 has not paid till date and is out standing with the Bank, appending the original certificate issued by the Bank on 16-12-1998 as Annexure-SGA-1 to the Supplementary Counter-Affidavit ; that the petitioner has wrongly stated that second instalment was for Rs. 33,410 whereas the correct fact was that the said amount was registration amount, which was not paid by the petitioner before 15- 7-86, the last date of receipt of the applica tion ; that the document appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition (the letter of registration) was issued under collusion with Mr. Thapiyal, the then Chief Account Officer of the Ghaziabad Development Authority ; that the letter of reservation issued on 25-10-1986 does not bear signa ture of any authority and only stamp of Vice-Chairman's signature has been put on it which itself demonstrates the con nivance ; that the payment of an amount of Rs. 33,410, alleged to be first instalment, by the, petitioner on 2-12-1986 is not dis puted and the respondents are prepared to return back this amount but this payment will not confer any right on the petitioner unless he had paid the registration amount and that there is no plot avail able in the scheme in question.
(3.) TODAY the petitioner has filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit stating, inter alia, that the pay order has not been encashed or cancelled by the petitioner till date and the said amount is still with the petitioner ; that due to mistake it was mentioned that second instalment of an amount of Rs. 33,410 was deposited on 23-10-1986, whereas the said amount was registration amount ; that the petitioner was never informed that the last date of the receipt of application of Vaishali Housing Scheme was 15-7- 1986 and this plea has been taken for the first time ; that it is totally incorrect to say that letter of registration was issued under collusion ; that Mr. Thapiyal was duly authorised to issue letter; and that all allotment letters bore the rubber stamp, signature of the Vice-Chairman and of Mr. Thapiyal and similar allotment letters were issued to Smt. Rekha and Sri Mahesh Kumar, who have been allotted residential plot and given possession thereafter. Having heard Mr. Raj Kumar Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority this much is clear to us thai the initial deposit by the petitioner is still lying with the Bank which had not credited that amount to the Ghaziabad Development Authority.;