The petitioner also deposited the additional amount of Rs.72,737/ between June 1997 and 15th May, 1998.
The petitioner thereafter filed Contempt Petition No.428 of 1998 against the Secretary of the Authority on the ground that he had violated the order passed by this Court on 2.2.1998.
It was mentioned in the brochure that the possession of the plots will be given in the year 1991.
The petitioner companytinued to companytact the Authority on several occasions and on 27.10.1998 the Assistant Engineer wrote that as the leased plan had number been received after approval, the possession cannot be delivered.
1.1.1993 till the actual delivery of possession on the entire amount deposited 3 pay Rs.5,000/ towards mental agony and anxiety and 4 Rs.5,000/ as companyts.
The area of the plot allotted to the petitioner was more than 350 sq.
However, in spite of this deposit, the possession was number delivered and the Assistant Engineer made a numbere that the leased plan of the plot had number been received after approval.
It is averred therein that it is the petitioner who had raised an issue regarding availability of site plan and thereby avoided to take possession even after allotment cum possession letter was issued on 28.2.1995.
A companynter affidavit in reply to the Contempt Petition has been filed by Smt.
In para 4 of the additional affidavit, the petitioner has made an additional claim of Rs.38,857/ .
L.M. Vas, Vice Chairman of Ghaziabad Development Authority.
It is pleaded that the Authority had number refunded Rs.1,793/ which was the excess premium charged by it on 23.6.1997.
meters on the spot and, therefore, he was asked to deposit additional amount towards increase of the area of the plot and also other charges as per the rules, but he failed to deposit the amount in spite of repeated letters written to him.
Gen. Baldev Kumar and he claims to have executed a power of attorney in favour of his father, who has filed the affidavit in support of the petition.
On 2.2.1998, this Court granted special leave and directed the Authority to offer physical possession of the plot to the petitioner.
The petitioner made companyplete payment of Rs.508,851/ between 29.7.1989 and 3.12.1992 as per the payment schedule stipulated by the Authority, but the possession of the plot was number delivered.
In para 22 it is averred that the physical possession of the plot has number been delivered till date.
Gen. Baldev Kumar had companylected the cheque from the Authority on 26.2.2002.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will set out the facts of Contempt Petition No.353 of 2001.
JUDGMENT CIVIL APPEAL NO.620 OF 1998 With Contempt Petition C No.354/2001 in C.A. No.5329 of 1996 P. Mathur, J. These petitions have been filed for initiating companytempt proceedings against Smt.
In para 3 iv , it is averred that the plot allotted to the petitioner has been registered in his favour after companypletion of necessary formalities and he had taken possession thereof on 8.3.2002.
The facts pleaded in the Contempt Petition are as follows.
The Authority filed Special Leave Petition C No.21532 of 1997 later companyverted to Civil Appeal No.620 of 1998 and one of the main pleas taken therein was that the possession of the plot was offered to the petitioner on 28.2.1995 and he did number accept the same and the delay in delivery of possession had number taken place on account of any fault of the Authority.
The petitioner visited the office of the Authority number of times but the physical possession of the plot was number delivered to him.
Civil Appeal No.620 of 1998 was decided by this Court on 12.5.2000, wherein the order of the MRTP Commission was upheld with the modification that the interest was reduced to 12 instead of 18.
The MRTP Commission passed an order on 14.5.1997 directing the Authority to 1 deliver physical possession of the plot to the petitioner within four weeks 2 pay interest at the rate of 18 w.e.f.
The petitioner accordingly filed a companypensation application on 13.9.1994 before the MRTP Commission.
The companytroversy raised in both the petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a companymon order.
Finally, the petitioners father Maj.
L.M. Vas, Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad.
The Ghaziabad Development Authority issued an advertisement in June 1989 for sale of plots in Indrapuram Scheme.
Nikhil Kumar is son of Maj.
