JUDGMENT
P.D. Mulye, J.
1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to allot to the petitioner, plot No. 102 in Scheme No. 47 at the rate of Rs. 6/-per square feet on the terms and conditions stated in the letter of allotment dated 3-4-1978 and to quash the inflated demand at the rate of Rs. 50/- per square feet, made by the respondents (Annexure M) dt. 20-12-1984 in respect of the said plot.
2. The facts of this case, being npt in dispute, may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner, who is a resident of Indore and in the employment of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, had on 19-12-1975 applied for allotment of a plot of land in Scheme No. 47. On the same day he deposited Rs. 1000/- whereupon he was given registration number as 101. Under the said scheme of allotment, a plot admeasuring 40 x 60 or 50 x 60 was to have been allotted to him at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet, on the first come first served basis. After a lapse of considerable time when the petitioner did not receive any information about the allotment of his plot, on enquiry he found that the allotment letter dt. 3-4-1978, which was meant for him was sent at a wrong address and was never returned back. His allotment was, however, cancelled on the ground of nd response. The petitioner, therefore, represented to the Chairman of the Indore Development Authority, which in its meeting held on 11th March, 1980 vide Resolution No. 15 admitted the mistake committed by its office and resolved to make available 4 plot to the petitioner on the same terms and conditions on which he would have got it had the letter of allotment addressed to him not been misdirected.
3. In compliance with the said resolution, the Indore. Development Authority, vide Annexure D dt. 12-5-1980 informed the petitioner that the plot will be allotted to him at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet and that in addition he will have to pay 10 per cent premium and 2 per cent lease rent.
4. The petitioner for whom thus plot No. 103 in Scheme No. 47 was reserved, was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 17, 135/- as per Annexure E dt. 3-6-1980. Accordingly the petitioner wanted to deposit the aforesaid amount on 30-6-1980 as per Annexure F, which was not accepted by the respondents and he was asked to attend the office on 7th July, 1980 and again on 10th July, 1980.
5. However, on the basis of some complaint made against the petitioner to the respondents to the effect that the petitioner is not a resident of Indore and that in April, 1978 and May 1978 he was not residing at Jndore, he was called upon to give his reply to. remove the doubt, vide Annexure-H dt. 15th July, 1980. The petitioner through his attorney informed the respondents that he is a permanent resident of Indore, residing at 25,Vallabh Nagar, Indore with his family and being in the employment of Life Insurance Corporation of India was in April and May 1978 posted at Kanpur, which fact was supported by affidavit.
6. Thereafter, vide Annexure K dated 6th March, 1984 the petitioner was again asked to state specifically where he was posted in April and May, 1978 of which the petitioner gave reply on 29th Mar, 1984, vide Annexure-L and requested the respondents to accept the balance amount and complete the formalities regarding registration of the plot in favour of the petitioner.
7. However, surprisingly, vide Annexure M dt. 20th Dec., 1984 the respondents informed the petitioner that now it is not possible to allot the said plot at the same rates which were prevalent in 1980 and, therefore, he should now pay at the prevailing rate of Rs. 50/- per square foot. Thus, he was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/-and a lease rent of Rs. 2800/- in respect of One year. Hence this petition.
8. The respondents in their return have not disputed the facts. However, it is contended that the respondent was justified in demanding from the petitioner the price of thesaid plot of land attherateofRs. 50/-per square foot as the prices in 1984 had gone up compared to the prices prevalent in 1978 and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing civil suit.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on going through the acts, which are not disputed, it is apparent that at no point of time the petitioner was at fault, that there was no condition that a person who is to be allotted a plot of land must be! resident of Indore, that it was found on enquiry by the respondents that the letter of allotmentwas not sent on the correct address of the petitioner with the result that the same could not be received by him, that it is the respondent who on some pretext or the other for years together sought information regarding the whereabouts of the petitioner
in April and May, 1978 as also his permanentplace of residence and thus it is therespondents who deliberately delayed andprolonged the matter on one pretext or theother till 1984. The learned counsel, therefore,submitted that the respondent now being aninstrumentality of the State, thus, could notat its own whim call upon the petitioner topay the price of the plot at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square feet merely because in 1984 thatwas the price prevailing in the market. Hetherefore, submitted that as the petitionerwas not at fault at any point of time, theimpugned order Annexure-M being illegaland arbitrary deserves to be quashed and setaside.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents was not in a convincing position to support the stand taken by the respondents vide Annexure-M dt. 20th Dec. 1984 demanding from the petitioner the price of the plot of land at the rate of Rs. 50/-per square foot. The learned counsel was unable to bring to our notice any such provision or Rules under which the respondents as in the present case, could fix the price at such an enhanced rate contrary to the initial priqe at which the plot was offered.
11. It is unfortunate that the respondent, which is an instrumentality of the State, should have delayed and prolonged the case of the petitioner on flimsy grounds for no fault of his and after a great lapse of time should call upon the petitioner to pay at the inflated rate of Rs. 50A per sq. ft. as compared to the rate of Rs. 6/- per square foot at which the said plot was initially offered to the petitioner. This clearly speaks of the highhandedness of the respondent as no valid reasons havebeen assigned in calling upon the petitioner to pay at the inflated rateof Rs. 50/- per square foot merely on the basis of the present market rate, especially when at no point of time the petitioner was at fault.
12. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order Annexure-M dt. 20th Dec. 1984 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to accept the balance amount on the basis of Annexure-A at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square foot, in respect of plot No, 103 in Scheme No. 47 and execute and register the sale deed of the said plot of land in favour of the petitioner and also hand over vacant possession thereof to him within a period of three months from today. Counsel’s fee Rs. 500/-. The amount of security deposit, if any, on verification be returned to the petitioner.