HIMACHAL SHIKSHA SAMITI Vs. H.P. NAGAR VIKASH PRADHIKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 while the Defendant is a body constituted under the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and has taken over the assets and liabilities of the erstwhile Shimla Development Authority, which had also been created under the same Act.

(2.) The Plaintiff has prayed for following reliefs to be granted in the present proceedings:

(3.) The aforesaid reliefs have been based upon the pleas that vide lease dated 7th January, 1992, the Plaintiff has been allotted a plot of land measuring 19.4 bighas comprised in khasra number(s) 12/2, 13, 49/14/2, 15/2, 53/20/2 situate in mauja Kasumpti, by the Defendant on lease hold basis for a term of 99 years for establishing an educational institution and the aforesaid lease deed was duly registered on 7th January, 1991 at Shimla. It has been further pleaded that as per term and condition No. 3 of the lease deed, Plaintiff was required to erect a building upon the said land within a period of five years, from the date of offer of possession. The building was accordingly required to be constructed by the end of year 1996. Plaintiff further averred that on 13th January, 1995, the Defendant through its Chief Administrator, issued a show cause notice requiring the Plaintiff to show cause as to why the building has not been constructed within two years, basing its contention on the allotment letter dated 5th August, 1991, which letter was subsequently converted into lease deed dated 7th January, 1992, referred to above. The Plaintiff replied the notice vide letter dated 23rd January,1995, pointing out the fact that as per contract contained in registered lease deed dated 7th January, 1992 the period allowed for constructing the building was of five years and that the construction was in advance stage. Inspite of satisfactorily explaining the matter, Defendant in most mechanical manner vide letter dated 1st February,1995 cancelled the allotment of the land and further vide letter dated 15th February, 1995 asked the Plaintiff to clear the site. It has been alleged that as a result of the said illegal action of the Defendant a dispute has arisen between the parties, relating to the interpretation of the terms of the lease deed and also the legality of the action taken by the Chief Administrator/Chief Engineer of the Defendant, whereby the allotment was cancelled.