Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.9367 of 2008
Date of decision: 4.11.2008
World Renewal Spiritual Trust through its
Branch Manager, Brahma Kumar Amir Chand.
....Petitioner.
Versus
Union Territory, Chandgarh and others
....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of
order dated July 18, 2007 (Annexure P-15) vide which the Letter of
Intent issued to the petitioner in respect of allotment of additional
land on lease hold basis was withdrawn as the petitioner had failed
to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Trust
was allotted site measuring 1494.56 sq. yds in Sector 33-A,
Chandigarh, at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yd for construction of Trust
centre on leasehold basis for 99 years vide Letter of Intent dated
25.1.1983. The construction thereon was raised by the petitioner.
Vide letter dated 3.12.1984, the petitioner-Trust requested the respondent authorities for allotment of adjoining plot of Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [2]
approximately 2000 sq. yds on the ground that as the activities of
the Trust were expanding rapidly, therefore accommodation
available with them was insufficient. Accordingly, vide Letter of
Intent dated 27.1.1986, the petitioner trust was allotted additional
land measuring 5 kanal, adjacent to the existing site of the petitioner
trust, at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq. yds on leasehold basis for 99
years. It was specified in the said Letter of intent that in addition to
the premium of land, ground rent at the usual rising scales shall also
be chargeable. It was also a condition in the Letter of Intent that
allotment shall be made on payment of 25% premium of the site.
Though in the Letter of Intent dated 27.1.1986 the petitioner -Trust
was allotted additional 5 kanals of land, but the Superintending
Engineer Construction Circle had given area of the said site as
2113.333 sq.yds. Accordingly vide Letter of Intent dated 19.2.1990,
additional land measuring 2113.333 sq.yds (4.23 kanals) was allotted
to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq.yds on lease-hold basis
for 99 years. In that letter it was mentioned that amount of
Rs.81500/- already paid by the petitioner shall stand adjusted
towards 25% of the total premium of land. In the meantime,
petitioner submitted yet another request vide letter dated 14.10.1993
for allotment of additional 25 feet wide strip of land.
On the basis of the recommendations of the Screening
Committee, the petitioner was allotted additional land measuring
501.92 sq. yds at the rate of Rs. 5800/- per sq. yd vide letter dated
24.4.2000. In that letter, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum
of Rs.7,27,784/- to cover 25% tentative premium along with an
undertaking on Non Judicial Stamp Paper within 30 days from the
Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [3]
date of issuance of the said letter. It is clearly mentioned therein
that allotment letter would be issued on receipt of 25% earnest
money along with the requisite undertaking. The petitioner did not
deposit the amount of Rs.7,27,784/- (as 25% earnest money) within
30 days from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent dated 24.4.2000
which was a specific condition laid down in the letter of intent for
issuance of allotment letter.
Instead of depositing 25% of the premium, the petitioner
vide letter dated 19.7.2000, again requested the authorities to
charge rate of land @ of Rs.130/- per sq. yard instead of Rs.5800/-
per sq.yds. The request of the petitioner was rejected vide letter
dated 4.1.2001(Annexure P-10) and petitioner was asked to deposit
the price of the additional land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an
appeal before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh,
against order dated January 4, 2001, which was not accepted and
the petitioner was, accordingly, informed vide letter dated
6.11.2001 (Annexure P-13). Aggrieved by the order of appellate
authority, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1440 of 2002 before this
Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated
23.1.2002, which reads as under:
“After arguing at length, in view of the fact that
allotment of additional land would be subject matter
of an independent transaction, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for
permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty
to pursue such remedy as admissible in accordance
with law for settlement of the price for allotment of
Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [4]additional land.
Leave and liberty granted. The writ
petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn.”
The petitioner submitted representations to the
authorities for consideration of his claim but vide impugned order
dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P-15), the Letter of Intent issued to the
petitioner in respect of allotment of additional land on lease hold
basis was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner failed to
deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period, which is a
subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, has argued that initially the plot was allotted to the
petitioner in the year 1986 and possession thereof was also
handed over but due to some mistake at the level of the respondents,
the amended allotment letter was issued for land measuring 4.23
kanals. In the amended letter of allotment, the price of additional
land at the rate of Rs.5800/- per sq. yd. was more than the initial rate
of Rs.130/- per sq. yd. The mistake was not on the part of the
petitioner but it was on the part of the respondents only. Mr. Mittal
argued that the petitioner was neither given any opportunity of
hearing nor any speaking order was passed and the letter of
allotment was withdrawn in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Mittal further
argued that the impugned order has been passed without
mentioning any reason and without any justification and, moreover,
the petitioner was subsequently ready to deposit the amount even at
the rate of Rs..5800/- per sq. yard and a draft was also prepared
Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [5]
which was not accepted by the respondents. Learned counsel for
the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
reported in M.D.,HSIDC and others Vs M/S Hari Om Enterprises
and another JT 2008 (8) SC 184 that the petitioner is ready to
deposit current price of the land in dispute and states that the delay
was due to the action of the respondents only as the petitioner was
entitled to deposit the price of the plot at the rate of Rs.130/- per
square yard, whereas the respondents were insisting the price of the
additional land at the rate of Rs.5800/- per.sq.yard. As an opportunity
was also given to the petitioner to deposit the price of the plot at the
rate of Rs.5800/- per sq. yards, but the same was not deposited as
the additional land was a part and parcel of the plot initially allotted
to the Trust.
A short reply has been filed by the respondents which is
on record.
Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to
3, has argued that only a Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner
and no letter of allotment was issued. The petitioner was afforded
ample opportunity to deposit the amount but in spite of granting
various opportunities, the amount of even 25% which was to be
deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of
Letter of Intent, was not deposited. It is clearly mentioned in the
Letter of Intent that in the event of default of breach or non
compliance of any of the conditions of lease, the land would be
cancelled and the site in dispute resumed. Since the petitioner had
failed to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period of
30 days, the Letter of Intent issued to the petitioner was withdrawn
Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [6]
as per terms and conditions of Letter of Intent.
We have heard arguments of learned counsel for parties
and have perused writ records.
It is an admitted case that petitioner has not deposited
25% of the earnest money within the stipulated period of 30 days
and the withdrawal of Letter of Intent was as per terms and
conditions mentioned therein. The relevant portion of the terms and
conditions of Letter of Intent is reproduced as under:
“………….In the event of default, breach or non-
compliance of any of the conditions of lease, the lease may be
cancelled and the site resumed and the whole/part amount paid
to the Government towards the premium/rent of the site may be
forfeited to Govt………”
It is clear from the documents on record that various
opportunities were granted to the petitioner to deposit the said
amount but, in spite of that, the amount was not deposited. The
balance amount was to be deposited after issuance of allotment
letter as only the Letter of Intent was issued and the allotment letter
was to be issued on deposit of 25% of the premium.
The petitioner has not complied with the terms and
conditions laid down in Letter of Intent dated 24.4.2000 and the same
was withdrawn on account of failure on the part of the petitioner -trust
to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period. The
petitioner-trust did not deposit the amount on the ground that the
additional land was a part and parcel of the plot already allotted to
the trust and due to mistake on the part of the respondents, that land
was not allotted and the amount was deposited of the land which was
Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [7]
not disputed. When this mistake came to the notice, the petitioner
immediately submitted application and requested to allot additional
land on the same rate and the respondents considered this land as
additional land and not part and parcel of the previous plot already
allotted to the trust.
The dispute is whether the land in dispute is a part and
parcel of the initial plot allotted to the petitioner-trust or it was an
additional land. Since the land is a part of that plot only which was
allotted to the petitioner-trust but the same could not be allotted as
the same was not found in record and this mistake came to the
notice of the authorities later. The submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner seems to be genuine as land in dispute is adjacent to
the land already allotted to the trust and, initially also, it was a part
and parcel of the same plot which was allotted to the petitioner. The
petitioner is ready to deposit current price of the plot in view of the
judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in M.D.,HSIDC’s case (supra).
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it
proper to direct the respondents to re-consider the claim of the
petitioner-trust in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble the
Apex Court in the afore-cited judgment if the petitioner-trust is ready
to deposit the current price of the land in dispute along with interest
and penal interest.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE JUDGE
4.11.2008.
raghav