CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.3689 of 1984
Date of decision: December 19, 2008.
M/s S.G. Steels Pvt. Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)
v.
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri D.S. Nehra, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. –
In this civil writ petition, the petitioner-industry seeks quashing
of the notices dated 6.11.1979 and 21.11.983 (Annexures P-3 & P-5) as also
a restraint order against the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short
the HUDA) from recovering a sum of Rs.3,84,413/- as an additional amount
towards the sale price of plot No.6, Sector IV Industrial-cum-Housing
Estate, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. A direction for not cancelling the
allotment of the aforementioned plot has also been sought.
Briefly stated, the facts are that plot No.6, Sector IV, Industrial-
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 2 :-
cum-Housing Estate, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was allotted to M/s
Santokh Singh Gurmukh Singh Steel Re-rolling Mills, i.e., the petitioner
vide allotment letter dated 4.5.1966, followed by the Deed of Conveyance
dated 15.10.1971 between the parties. The total area of the plot is 4.42
acres, i.e., 21,433.33 sq. yards and it was allotted @ Rs.8/- per square yard.
In the allotment letter dated 4.5.1966 (Annexure P-1), it was specifically
stipulated that the above mentioned rate was “tentative price” and as per
condition No.8 of the allotment letter, “in case of enhancement of
compensation by the Court”, the allottee was required to pay the additional
price. Similarly, the Deed of Conveyance dated 15.10.1971 (Annexure P-
2), expressly stipulated that “vendor reserves the right to enhance the
tentative price by the amount of the additional price determined in
accordance with the said rules”.
The petitioner thereafter was served with a notice dated
6.11.1979 asking payment of the enhanced compensation. The notice
stipulated that due to enhancement of compensation by the District/High
Court of the acquired land, the petitioner-allottee was liable to pay an
additional amount of Rs.66.443.32, i.e., Rs.3.10 per square yard. At this
stage, it may be mentioned that the allotted plot was carved out of a big
chunk of land measuring 609.23 acres of villages Ballabgarh, Mujesar and
Sihi which was acquired by the then Punjab Government on 23.8.1962.
The petitioner received yet another notice dated 2.3.1983
whereby it was asked to pay an additional amount of Rs.3,49,467.58 on
account of “payment of enhanced compensation (first and second with
interest)”. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount, a 10%
penalty, i.e., Rs.34,946.75 was also slapped on it. Vide an order dated
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 3 :-
16.6.1983 (Annexure P-3 Colly), followed by the show cause notice dated
13.9.1983 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner was called upon to show cause as
to why the plot should not be resumed for non-payment of the additional
allotment price.
The petitioner contested the aforesaid show cause notice and it
appears that soon after it was afforded an opportunity of personal hearing on
29.11.1983, the petitioner approached this Court apprehending the
resumption of the plot due to non deposit of the additional amount.
When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on
22.8.1984, a Division Bench of this Court stayed resumption of the plot till
further orders. The writ petition was thereafter dismissed in limine on
29.11.1984. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and their Lordships vide order dated 3.5.1993 passed in Civil Appeal
No.2488 of 1993 allowed the petitioner’s appeal and remanded the case to
this Court for a fresh decision. Till then, recovery of the disputed amount
was also stayed.
It may, however, be mentioned here that the petitioner has now
moved CM No.14222 of 2008 for issuance of a direction to the respondents
“to permit the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,34,695/- without
prejudice to the right of the petitioner….”. The aforesaid application has
also been heard along with the main case.
The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Relying
upon the definition of “additional price” as contained in rule 2 (aa) of the
Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Site) Rules, 1965, their prime contention is
that the petitioner has been asked to deposit the additional price as
determined in accordance with the Rules. They have further referred to
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 4 :-
Regulation 4 of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and
Buildings) Regulations, 1978 to contend that the allotment of the land on
tentative price was made to the petitioner on the principle of non profit, no
loss.
On merits, para 5 of the written statement reads as follows:-
“5. That this very point raised in CWP No.801 of 1978 –
Harbans Lal Taneja etc. v. State of Haryana and others
decided on 22.7.1981. It was held that the petitioners are
liable to pay additional price. CWP No.3999 of 1979 and
4333 of 1979 were filed by M/s Gurewal (India) Limited
in this Hon’ble High Court against the demand of
additional price. The same was dismissed by Division
Bench of this Hon’ble High Court (copy enclosed). M/s
Gurewal (India) Limited filed SLP No.486-87 of 1980 in
the Hon’ble High (Supreme) Court against the order of
this Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court also dismissed the same on
14.10.1981. This writ petition may also be dismissed in
view of the judgment of M/s Gurewal (India) Limited.”
I have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length
and perused the pleadings. No one, however, has put in appearaance on
behalf of the respondents to assist the Court.
In the year 1966, when the subject plot was allotted to the
petitioner, the price used to be determined in accordance with the provisions
of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965. Rule 4 thereof
reads as follows:-
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 5 :-
“Sale Price:- (1) In the case of sale of a site by allotment,
the sale price shall be:-
(a) Where such site forms part of the land acquired by the
State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
and:-
(i)no reference under Section 18 thereof is made against
the award of the collector or such a reference having
been made has failed the tentative price;
(ii) on a reference made under Section 18 thereof the
compensation awarded by the Collector is enhanced by
the Court, the aggregate of the tentative price and the
additional price;
(b) in any other case such final price as may be
determined by the State Government from time to time.”
It, thus, appears that the subject plot was allotted on “tentative
price” for the reason that the acquisition being of the year 1962, the land-
owners’ claims for enhancement of compensation were pending adjudication
before one or the other fora. It is only after the decision of those cases that
the price of the entire land of the Industrial Sector was determined taking
into account the compensation of the whole land divided by the plotable
area after making provisions for roads, parks and other amenities.
Similarly, the respondents are entitled to include the development,
establishment charges and/or permissible unforeseen charges while
determining the price of the land for the entire Sector.
The petitioner was allotted the plot on agreed terms and
conditions. It is explicit in the allotment letter (Annexure P-1) as well as the
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 6 :-
Deed of Conveyance (Annexure P-2) that in case of enhancement of
compensation etc. of the acquired land, the petitioner shall be liable to pay
the additional amount towards the sale price of the plot. Having accepted
those terms and conditions, the petitioner cannot question the additional
demand towards enhanced compensation of the plot. This, however, does
not mean that the respondents can determine additional price arbitrarily or
on their whims and fancies. The respondents being public authorities are
obligated to act in a fair and just manner. What it appears to be is that the
petitioner has been unreasonably resisting the payment of additional price
which the respondents unfortunately raised without following a transparent
procedure. Had the respondents briefly disclosed as to how the additional
price has been calculated, may be that the petitioner would not have
objected to its payment. The non-mentioning of the details in the demand
notice, however, did not absolve the petitioner from its liability to pay the
additional price and then to contest the mode of determination, if it felt
aggrieved.
In the given situation, I am of the considered view that the only
appropriate recourse would be to direct the petitioner to deposit the
additional price as demanded by the respondents by way of notice dated
2.3.1983 (Annexure P-3) along with the interest which the HUDA has paid
to the land-owners. On payment of the aforementioned amount within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order, the respondent-HUDA authorities shall, within a period of two
months, provide the petitioner a brief statement of account as to how the
additional price has been determined. Needless to say that if the authorities
fail to justify the total demand contained in their notice dated 2.3.1983
CWP No.3689 of 1984 -: 7 :-
(Annexure P-3), the excess amount shall be refunded to the petitioner along
with interest at the same rate as would be charged from it.
Disposed of accordingly.
December 19, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge