Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28564 of 2018 Petitioner :- Khem Chand @ Khema And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 3.
The petitioners by means of this writ petition have challenged the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by respondent No. 3, Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA. Other prayer of the petitioners is that respondent No. 3 be directed to allot 5% developed abadi land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the registered sale deed dated 08.10.2007 under which the land of the petitioners was purchased by respondent No. 3.
The petitioners have previously filed Writ-C No. 8973 of 2018 (Khem Chand @ Khema and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) claiming similar benefit of allotment of 5% developed abadi land in terms of the aforesaid sale deed dated 08.10.2007. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 9.3.2018 with the direction to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to consider the grievance of the petitioner within a time bound period. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order dated 27.04.2018 has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA.
A perusal of the sale deed dated 8.10.2007 reveals that under condition No. 12, the NOIDA had agreed to allot to the original tenure holder's 10% undeveloped land of the purchased land at the prevailing market rate and the development charges were to be paid separately.
The impugned order states that the petitioners have been allotted 5% abadi land individually and separately.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in addition to the allotment of the above 5% land, they are entitle to 5% more land in terms of the conditions of the sale deed.
The condition of the sale deed is for the allotment of 10% undeveloped land. However, petitioners have been allotted 5% developed land.
It may be pertinent to mention here that aforesaid condition for the allotment of 10% undeveloped land contained in the sale deed has been incorporated on the basis of the resolution of the NOIDA Board passed in its 92nd meeting held on 7.1.1998, but the said resolution had been modified by the NOIDA Board in its 96th meeting and it has been provided that the original tenure holders would be entitled to allotment of either 10% undeveloped land or 5% developed land. It appears that 5% developed land is treated to be equivalent to 10% undeveloped land.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the petitioners have already been allotted 5% developed land, no further allotment is possible to them.
This apart, the petitioners is virtually alleging breach of the terms and conditions of the sale deed which is in the form of a concluded contract. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners for such breach is by way of a civil suit and not by invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in the end argued that as per the conditions contained in the sale deed, petitioners have not been paid rehabilitation bonus also. This again is a matter of breach of the conditions of the contract for which the appropriate remedy is civil suit.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Sartaj