JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The writ petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 who are members of an unregistered society, have been allotted house by the Lucknow Development Authority (for short 'L.D.A.') under Ram Nagar Housing Scheme, Lucknow. An advertisement was published in the news paper on 24th January, 1984 inviting applications for providing a house at a cost of Rs. 50,000. The advertisement disclosed that plot area of each house shall be 115.5 sq. metre, and plinth area 47 sq. metre with a provision for construction of one additional room in future. It was also mentioned that the preference shall be given to those, who would like to have houses in Self-Financing Scheme. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the writ petitioners applied for registration after depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000 in the Bank. The writ petitioners thereafter found that the L.D.A. unilaterally and arbitrarily reduced the plot area to 73.92 sq. metre and plinth area to 32.9 sq. metre from plot area 115.5 sq. metre and plinth area 47 sq. metre, as mentioned in the advertisement. It was also mentioned in the booklet that the houses would be completed by 31st December, 1984 and in case of delay, the money deposited shall not be returned. Since the houses were to be allotted by lottery system, hence an advertisement was published in the Northern India Patrika on 19th July, 1984 for drawal of lottery. In the said lottery, the writ petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 were found to be successful and they were allotted house Nos. 80, 79, 76, 54, 98, 172 and 33 respectively along with others. In some of the cases of the writ petitioners, a tripartite agreement was also executed amongst the employer (Government of India) ; the L.D.A., and the writ petitioners and after obtaining loan amount, they deposited the requisite money with the L.D.A. in Self Financing Scheme with a legitimate expectation to get a house. However, subsequently, it was informed by the L.D.A. that the houses would be given to the writ petitioners in the same scheme at another place provided they agreed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 23,000 for each house which was in addition to Rs. 50,000 already deposited by them. In those letters, it was also mentioned that in case the writ petitioners failed to submit their consent by 15th June, 1986 (in some letters it was mentioned by 20th June, 1986, it would be deemed that they were not interested to have the houses and their allotment shall stand automatically cancelled. According to the writ, petitioners, these letters were posted after expiry of the date, mentioned therein. In paragraph 14 of the writ application, it has been alleged that the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 5 and 8 were served with the letter on 20th June, 1986 respectively.
(2.)By a notice dated 15th October, 1986 to the L.D.A. the writ petitioners demanded possession of the houses proposed to be given to them at a cost of Rs. 50,000. Instead of considering the demand of the writ petitioners, the L.D.A. made a publication in the newspaper dated 13th November, 1986 that a fresh lottery will be drawn on 26th November, 1986 amongst those, who would give their consent by 25th November, 1986 to pay enhanced amount. According to the writ petitioners, the L.D.A. having promised to give possession of the houses by completing them on or before 31st December, 1984 and even after realising the full amount, instead of handing over possession of the allotted houses, it demanded an illegally and arbitrarily enhanced amount of Rs. 23,000 for each of the house already allotted. Accordingly, the writ petitioners filed the present writ applications for handing over possession of one house each for Rs. 50,000 and other incidental reliefs and also executing a deed of transfer in their favour for the same and get its registration done. It was further prayed by the writ petitioners that the L.D.A. be directed to pay interest @18 per cent per annum to each of the writ petitioners.
(3.)The factual aspect of the matter was controverted by the L.D.A. in its counter-affidavit. One of the main contentions raised by the L.D.A. is that these writ applications filed by the writ petitioners for breach of contract between them and the L.D.A. were not maintainable and even if there was any violation of any terms and conditions of such breach of contract, remedy lay by instituting a civil suit for specific performance of the contract or for damages. It was also alleged by the L.D.A. in the counter-affidavit that since disputed questions of fact were raised by the writ petitioners in these writ applications, it was not desirable to adjudicate them in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as evidence must be led which cannot be done by the writ court,