Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
As per the case of the petitioner, members of the petitioner Samiti had constructed 127 houses on the land/plot Khasra Nos. 324, 325, 326, 334, 335, 336, 337, 348 , 340 and 321. It is stated that these houses have water, electricity and telephone connections as well. The members of the petitioner are also enrolled in the voters list. The Mayor, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad vide order dated 10.5.1998 to the Chief Executive Officer informed that the members of the Samiti are ready to development of the said colony and that the members of the society were ready to deposit the regularisation fee under the scheme dated 19.1.1996 yet the respondents are intending to demolish their houses. Hence this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents not to demolish the houses of the members of the Samiti existing on the aforesaid Khasara/plots and to regularise them.
It is submitted on behalf of the Ghaziabad Development Authority that admittedly the said plots on which 127 houses were constructed was acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for construction of a Girls school but residents of the said society made illegal constructions on the said land for which they have no legal rights and title.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention towards the order dated 8.4.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14851 of 1999 Sarvodaya Nagar Kalyan Samiti vs. State of U.P. and others in which the High Court had directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Ghaziabad Development Authority and till the decision of the representation of the petitioner, the constructions made by the members of the petitioner Samiti shall not be demolished.
During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the land belongs to Ghaziabad Development Authority and constructions made thereon by the members of the petitioner Sarvodaya Nagar Samiti Ghaziabad are illegal.
After hearing the learned counsel we, in the peculiar facts of the case, hold that petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of the aforementioned judgment dated 8.4.1999 because in compliance of the said order petitioner had already made a representation which was disposed of by the President, Ghaziabad Development Authority vide order dated 21.7.1999 directing that atleast 75% of the residents shall deposit the cost of the land, prevailing at that time, at the rate of Rs.1500/- per sq. m. and 50% of the total amount was to be paid within three months and thereafter balance amount was to be deposited alongwith interest at the rate of 18% within a period of one year.
Perusal of the record shows that in the instant case the Court vide order dated 17.1.2008 directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority to accept the payment if the petitioner deposits the same as per order of the Court communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 21.7.1999, failing which it would be open to the petitioner to produce the bank draft before this Court on the date fixed which would be handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent for making payment to the Ghaziabad Development Authority. Thereafter on 25.2.2008 the petitioner produced 47 bank drafts of different amount before the Court and the Court refused to accept the bank drafts because the conditions mentioned in the order dated 21.7.1099 passed by the President, Ghaziabad Development Authority were not being satisfied. The Court then directed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit giving details of the area which was in illegal possession of the petitioner Samiti as well as the area in possession of each of its members and the basis on which amounts were being paid. In compliance of which, the supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner containing list of only 27 residents who had deposited the amount. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 11.2.2009 list of 27 residents of the petitioner samiti has been filed and it has been mentioned therein that around 35% of the total cost of land occupied by the persons was being deposited in first instalment and the balance amount shown against each will be deposited shortly. This list contains only 27 occupants while as per the order dated 21.7.1999 it was directed by the President, Ghaziabad Development Authority that 50% of the total cost shall be deposited within three months and the balance amount shall be paid alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum within a period of one year. That condition was not complied with because bank drafts were submitted on 27.5.2008 and that too with regard to only 27 occupants out of 127 occupants while it was directed in the order dated 21.7.1999 that 75% of the total occupants shall deposit the cost of the land as indicated above.
As per order of the President, Ghaziabad Development Authority. atleast 75% of the residents had to deposit the fee but in this case only 27 persons had deposited the fee. Thus, it is clear that order dated 21.7.1999 of the President, Ghaziabad Development Authority has not been complied with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted during course of argument that society had encroached upon the Khasra no. 324, 325, 326, 334, 335, 336, 337, 348 , 340 and 321 of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and had allotted it in the name of members illegally who had made illegal and unauthorised constructions upon it. The aforesaid plots were acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for the construction of a Girls school.
This writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 1.7.2009 and the interim order was vacated. This Court vide order dated 24.5.2010 recalled the order dated 1.7.2009 but the interim order was not restored.
The petitioner has not been able to satisfy us as to how the plots have been allotted in the name of members and how the society had made 127 houses over the aforesaid land acquired by the Ghaziabad Development Authority for construction of girls school. As per the averment made in para 18 of the petition it is clear that foundation stone for a girls school in the said colony has also been laid down on 21.5.2002.
No other point has been argued. Since it is admitted that the petitioner had illegally constructed the residential houses over the aforesaid land the writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No orders as to costs.
Order Date :- 8.9.2011 P.P.