M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Srivastva, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner have prayed for quashing the letters dated 17.7.2003 and 16.7.2003 as contained in Annexures -8 and 8/A to the writ application whereby the respondents he demanded development cost of the land failing which the agreement for lease shall be terminated. The petitioner, in pursuant of an advertisement made by the respondents in 1986 applied for allotment of plots in the City Centre of Bokaro Steel City. The petitioners having fulfilled the terms and conditions for allotment, were allotted the plots and lease deeds were duly executed and registered in 1992 for a period of 33 years petitioner 'scase is that after investing huge amount, they constructed houses as per plan approved by the respondents and they were residing and carrying on their business. It is stated that in 1993 when the petitioners asked for basic facilities like water and electricity, the respondents insisted for a undertaking on non -judicial stamp paper. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, the respondents have issued the impugned demand letters in 2003 asking them for payment of an amount of Rs. 2,73,968/ -towards the land premium and development charges on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioners under coercion and duress. The petitioners have fifed representations which were also rejected.
(3.) FROM perusal of the impugned letters it transpires that the said demand has been made by the respondents as per the terms and conditions of the original deed of agreement coupled with the undertaking submitted by the petitioners regarding payment of development cost. Admittedly the plots were allotted to the petitioners for a period of 33 years by registered deed of lease which contains several terms and conditions. The question whether the respondents are entitled to realize and/or the petitioners are liable to pay development cost in terms of the lease agreement cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. No constitutional or statutory right has been created under the lease agreement and, therefore, the reciprocal obligation of the parties can be determined only by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.;