JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. Raising a small controversy the present writ petition has been filed. The facts are not much disputed. The dispute relates to the demand notice dated 6th January, 2003 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as A.D.A.) demanding a sum of Rs. 63.352 as the amount due up to the period 31.12.2000. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that after clearing the aforesaid amount in respect of the house. H.I.G. 25, the sale deed in respect of the said plot may be executed on concessional rate upto 31st March, 2003 otherwise stamp duty on registration shall be payable on circle rate.
2. The petitioner claims himself to be Power of Attorney holder of one Smt. Awadh Kishore Mishra, who was allotted Flat N. 25, Type-II, A.D.A. Colony, Circular Road, Allahabad. Sri Awadh Kishore Mishra had deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000 at the time of registration. The A.D.A. worked out the balance cost price of the Flat in question at Rs. 3,10,000. The aforesaid amount was deposited by means of two Bank drafts and the A.D.A. has not disputed the deposit of Rs. 3,10.000 as stated by the petitioner in the writ petition. The further allegation is that after ten years, all of sudden the Zonal Officer of Allahabad Development Authority, issued a letter calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 66,352, which has been followed by the impugned demand notice. According to the petitioner the impugned demand made by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. For ten years no demand of any kind was ever raised by the respondents.
3. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the supplementary counter-affidavit the break up of the impugned demand has been given vide Annexure-S.C.A. 9A. A perusal of the same shows that upto 31.3.1991 after giving adjustment of Rs. 3,10,000 a sum of Rs. 25,686 was due from the allottee towards interest. The said amount has increased by addition of interest upon interest for the subsequent years.
4. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vikram Nath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The petitioner was required to deposit the balance total amount of Rs: 3,10.000 in three instalments, (1) Rs. 1,55,000 by 31.7.1990, (2) Rs. 77,500 by 30.9.1990 and (3) Rs. 77,500 by 30,11.1990. It appears that the petitioner committed default in making said payments, as a result of which the Allahabad Development Authority initiated proceeding to cancel the said allotment. The A.D.A. subsequently settled the matter and granted the petitioner another opportunity to make the said deposit of Rs. 3,10,000 in two equal instalments payable on 5.3.1991 and 25.3.1991 vide order dated 13.2.1991. The petitioner on 23.3.1991 made the aforesaid deposits within time thus extended and the A.D.A. delivered the possession of the aforesaid Flat to the petitioner on 23.3.1991 itself. The said factual averment has not been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of A.D.A.
6. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his willingness on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to make deposit of Rs. 25,686 i.e., interest on delayed payments till 31,3.1991. However, he contended that the fault lies with the A.D.A. for not raising the demand immediately after 31.3.1991. The A.D.A. kept tight over the matter for a period of about ten years and it should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. Reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Overseas Agro Product Pvt. Limited v. U. P. Financial Corporation and Ors., 2003 (1) AWC 185. In the aforesaid judgment it has been held that no man can take the advantage of his own wrong. That is based on elementary principles and is fully recognised in Courts of law. The possession was handed over to the petitioner on 23rd March, 1991. The A.D.A. should have raised the demand of balance amount of interest immediately after delivery of possession. The fault lies with the A.D.A. in not raising the demand and the petitioner cannot suffer for the inaction of the respondents in the matter.
7. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned demand dated 6.1.2003, Annexure-11 to the writ petition is quashed with a direction to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,686 with the Allahabad Development Authority, forthwith and on such deposit being made by the petitioner the Allahabad Development Authority shall take necessary steps to get the sale deed registered in respect to the aforesaid house in question before 31.3.2003 so that the petitioner may avail the benefit of concessional rate of stamp duty payable on the registration of the sale deed.
8. There will be however, no order as to costs.