SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to allot the plot to the petitioner and further more letter dtd. 8.1.1999 (Annex. 6) issued by the Executive Officer. Municipal Board, Rajsamand (respondent No. 2) by which a sum of Rs. 6910/ - was further demanded as lease money for 10 years be quashed and set aside.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That the petitioner filed an application before respondents for allotment of a residential plot. The respondents through notice dtd. 30.9.1985 (Annex. 1) allowed the application and demanded Rs. 6250/ - as sale price. The petitioner deposited the amount of Rs. 6250/ - as sale price on 11.10.1985 (Annex. 2) The respondents allotted a plot No. 18 in the Scheme named as Koyad 'B' at Kankroli and issued a lease -deed dtd. 24.2.1987 (Annex. 3). After issuance of lease -deed dtd. 24.2.1987 (Annex. 3), the petitioner requested the respondents for giving physical possession of the plot No. 18 through various representations and one of the representations dtd. 15.1.1991 is marked as Anex. 4. (ii) That thereafter the respondents issued notice dtd. 8.1.1999 (Annex. 6) to the petitioner that the plot No. 18 was disputed one so now they allotted another plot No. 2 in Koyad 'B' Scheme measuring 25' x 50' in place of Plot No. 18 and further demanded a sum of Rs. 6910/ - as lease money for the new Plot No. 2 allotted to her. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dtd. 8.1.1999 (Annex. 6) on two grounds: (i) That even in compliance of notice dtd. 8.1.1999 (Annex. 6), vacant possession of Plot No. 2 has not been handed over to the petitioner. (ii) That demand of Rs. 6910/ - as lease money is arbitrary as he had already paid the sale price of plot No. 18 earlier allotted to him through notice dtd. 30.9.1985 (Annex. 1).
(3.) REPLY to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and in their reply, the respodnents had admitted the case of the petitioner on the point that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of plot and the respondents are duty bound to allot the same and efforts are being made for allotting the plot to the petitioner and hence the writ petition be dismissed.;