H.S. Bhalla, J. - (1.) INVOKING extraordinary writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3.60 lacs, which has been charged by them illegally on account of conversion charges of Shop -cum -flat to Shop -cum -Office. The petitioners have further prayed for deciding the legal notice dated 21st December, 2005 (Annexure P -14) served upon the respondents in accordance with law.
(2.) THE facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this petition are that respondents allotted one commercial site in Sector 30 -C, namely, S.C.O. No. 76 on 11th June, 1968 for a sum of Rs. 34,000 for a trade of printing Press -cum -General in favour of one Smt. Bimla Devi, wife of Ram Gopal, resident of Chandigarh. A copy of the allotment letter is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P -1. She sold the same, vide registered sale deed dated 27th July, 1998 in favour of Shri G.P. Bansal, son of Shri Krishan Dass Bansal, resident of Delhi for a consideration of Rs. 2,25,000/ -. It is the case of the petitioners that the allotment letter and the sale deed executed by its original allottee clearly spells out that right from the very beginning the premises was Shop -cum -Office and at no point of time, it was ever described as Shop -cum -Flat. The petitioners purchased the said Shop -cum -Office No. 76 from the above mentioned G.P. Bansal, - vide registered sale deed dated 17th June, 2003 for a consideration of Rs. 42 lacs, a copy of which is annexed with the petition as Annexure P -3. After the registration of the sale deed, the petitioners applied for transfer of Shop -cum -Office in their favour and the same was allowed, - vide letter dated 26th June, 2003. The petitioners, in order to change the trade, which was earlier shown as Printing Press -cum -General applied to the respondents for conversion of trade in the said S.C.O. No. 76 and enclosed draft of Rs. 50,000/ - along with the same and also submitted the drawing for its approval. In response to the above letter, the respondents on 27th October, 2004 addressed a letter to the petitioners to first get the Shop -cum -Flat into Shop -cum -Office. In response to the letter, the petitioners sent a reply that they had applied for conversion of trade and their premises was already Shop -cum -Office and not Shop -cum -Flat and therefore, it is totally wrong and irrelevant to get the conversion from Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office, but this request was not accepted by the respondents and the petitioners again applied and requested that only the conversion charges of the trade be charged from them. The petitioners moved a representation to the respondents, but they did not approve the building plan and also did not allow the conversion of trade. The petitioner again, vide two separate representations requested the respondents to withdraw the conversion from Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office by written request/representation dated 6th December, 2004, but to no effect. It is further pointed out that the respondents through their Sub -Divisional Officer Buildings again addressed a letter to the petitioners to get the premises converted from Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office and in response to this letter, in order to avoid any delay in conversion of the trade, as the petitioners were to open the Guest House, deposited the conversion charges from Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office to the tune of Rs. 3,60,000/ - under protest subject to reserving their right to get it adjusted towards conversion fee of the trade. In response to the above said letter, the respondents issued a letter dated 10th January, 2005 regarding conversion of S.C.O. site No. 76 from Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office after receipt of Rs. 3,60,000/ -. A copy of the letter dated 10th January, 2005 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P -13. The petitioners many a times, requested for the refund of the said illegal amount, which they have taken by force and under the garb of conversion of trade, but the respondents on one or the other pretext refused to refund the same. Thereafter the petitioners on 21st December, 2005 sent a legal notice through their counsel, but the respondents have not refunded the amount and this necessitated the filing of the petition in hand. On the other hand, the petition was contested by the respondent and through the written reply pointed out that the petitioners have no locus standi to refund the amount of conversion charges of Shop -cum -Flat to Shop -cum -Office, which the petitioners have willingly deposited and thereby got converted the trade from General to Guest house and now they cannot be allowed to agitate upon the matter. It is further admitted by the respondents that Plot No. 76, Sector 30 -C, Chandigarh, was initially allotted in the name of Bimla Devi, wife of Ram Gopal, but in the allotment letter issued to her, some how the aforesaid site was wrongly described as S.C.O. instead of S.C.F. as under the Zoning Plan/Control Sheet, the said site is provided as S.C.F. It is also admitted that the original allottee sold the said site in favour of G.P. Bansal and it has been again asserted by the answering respondents that the site in question was S.C.F. as per the Zoning Plan, but some how in the allotment letter, it was wrongly described as S.C.O. It has been admitted that the aforesaid G.P. Bansal then sold the site in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have also admitted that petitioners applied for the transfer of the rights in their favour consequent upon the purchasing of the site from the said Shri G.P. Bansal. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioners applied for the conversion of the trade from General to Guest House and also deposited the token money of Rs. 50,000/ -. The respondents have also admitted that in response to the letter of the petitioners, the petitioners were informed that the petitioners shall have to first get the S.C.F. converted into S.C.O. and then for conversion of the trade, which was duly complied with without any protest as is clear on perusal of the letter whereby demand of conversion was acknowledged to the petitioners and conversion allowed, which the petitioners duly accepted without any protest. It is further pointed out that the petitioners deposited the amount for conversion of S.C.F. and also deposited without any protest and it is only after the needful was done, the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate upon the matter that the site in question was not S.C.F. and the respondents have to go with the Zoning Plan/Control Sheet where in the site has been described as Shop -cum -Flat and the plan has also been sanctioned. If some how on the allotment letter instead of S.C.F., it was mentioned as S.C.O., it does not mean that the petitioners got any vested rights specifically. Moreover, conversion charges were without any protest and by denying the other assertions raised in the petition, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
(3.) THE petitioners chose to file replication wherein they challenged the stand taken by the respondents and denied the assertions made in the written statement and reiterated their stand taken in the petition.;