- (1.) It is a case of long and checkered history. At an earlier point of time, the petitioner had gone to the Supreme Court four times, once as a respondent in an appeal filed by respondent No.1 and three times by filing applications for modification of an order passed by it on 16.5.2008. The petitioner failed to make compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in I.A. No. 2 of 2008 on 22.9.2008 (Annexure R3), Review Petition (C) No. 2232 of 2008 on 6.8.2009 (Annexure R4) and another application viz. I.A. No. 3 decided vide order dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure R9), the present litigation has been started.
(2.) In this writ petition, the primary prayer of the petitioner reads thus:- "(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents, directing the respondents to release the plot No. 14, Sector 4, I.M.T. Manesar, measuring 4050 sq. meters of the petitioner, from resumption and to execute the conveyance deed in respect of the said plot in favour of the petitioner. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondents, directing the respondents to give the certified copy of their audited accounts in respect of the arrears, if any, in respect of the plot in question as on 12.3.2010, reconcile the accounts with the petitioner in respect of the said plot and to refund the amount of Rs. Sixty eight Lacs & fifty thousand only with due interest paid by the petitioner in excess to the respondents, as per the order dated 16.5.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India".
(3.) As per the facts on record, the petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 4050 square meters in IMT Manesar on 26.6.2000, physical possession whereof was handed over to him on 28.2.2003. When the petitioner failed to raise construction over the plot, as per the terms & conditions of the allotment letter, it was resumed vide order dated 28.6.2005. The petitioner came to this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 2926 of 2006 which was allowed vide order dated 3.8.2006 (Annexure P3). Respondent No.1-Corporation went to the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No. 16711 of 2006. That appeal along with many other cases was disposed of by the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.5.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1089 of 2008, relevant portion whereof reads thus:- "In all these cases, it is difficult to uphold the order of the High Court. But a general offer was made by the learned Additional Solicitor General that those who intend to obtain reallotment of plot may do so on payment of the price as per the current rate as on the date of the order of the High Court. Before us, several allottees had categorically made a statement that they are ready and willing to pay the prevailing price as fixed by the appellant-Corporation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that in the event, respondents offer the prevailing price as on the date of judgment of the High Court, the plot, in question, shall stand re-allotted and should be subject to the same terms and conditions. Such allotment may be made even in cases where we have found the order of the High Court to be unsustainable. Respondents shall deposit the amount within six weeks from date. Appellant shall hand over the possession of the plot, in question, within four weeks thereafter. The highest executive of Appellant-Corporation shall see to it that the order of this Court is complied with. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the respondents concerned in making payment in terms of this order, it would be open to the appellant to take recourse to such action as is permissible in law. Subject, of course, to the directions issued in individual cases, the appeals are disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.";