Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hardev Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 August, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 01.08.2012
1) CWP No. 3679 of 2011
Hardev Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
2) CWP No. 12591 of 2012
Rajinder Kumar Gupta & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
3) CWP No. 12600 of 2012
Chamel Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
4) CWP No. 12610 of 2012
Majumdar Singh & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
5) CWP No. 12658 of 2012
Suresh Kumar Sharma & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH
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 : Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWP No. 3679 of 2011.
Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners in
CWP Nos. 12591, 12600, 12610, 12658 of 2012,
Ms. Monika Chibber Sharma, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab.
CWP No. 3679 of 2011 [2]
Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3 in
CWP No. 3679 of 2011.
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2-PSIEC
in CWP Nos. 12591, 12600, 12610, 12658 of 2012.
****
SURYA KANT J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3679 of 2011 and 12591, 12600, 12610, 12658 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.
2. For convenience, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 3679 of 2011.
3. The petitioners in this petition seek quashing of demand notices dated 25.11.2010 (Annexures P-5 to P-14) whereby they have been asked to deposit additional amount towards enhanced compensation @ ` 345/- per sq. yard though the petitioners are said to have deposited the entire consideration money @ ` 600/- per sq. yard.
4. The controversy pertains to the residential plots allotted by the Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') at Pathankot. The petitioners are successful allottees to whom the subject plots were allotted @ ` 600 per sq. yard in the year 2001. The petitioners have thereafter been served with the impugned notices raising an additional demand @ ` 345/- per sq. yard. The petitioners question the additional liability as according to them even after enhancement of compensation by the Courts in favour of landowners, the total cost of the allotted land does not exceed @ ` 300/- per sq. yard against which ` 600/- per sq. yard CWP No. 3679 of 2011 [3] have already been charged from them. The petitioners, however, have not disputed the fact that as a result of enhancement of compensation alongwith interest etc., there is an addition of ` 345/- per sq. yard in the allotment price of the plots.
5. This Court vide order dated 01.03.2011 directed the respondents to furnish the details of enhanced amount sought to be recovered from the petitioners with a further direction to the petitioners to deposit such enhanced amount without prejudice to their legal rights.
6. The respondent-Corporation has filed its reply-affidavit along with breakup of the estimated cost of the project at the initial stage. The estimated cost given by the Corporation includes various components like the land price, development cost, commercial facilities, common facilities, public building and maintenance etc. besides recurring expenses. It is maintained that after the initial works were completed, the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur has passed an award enhancing the amount of compensation of the acquired land which has necessitated the issuance of impugned demand notices. It further appears from the reply/affidavit filed by the Corporation that the enhanced compensation on proportionate distribution has increased the cost @ ` 344/- per sq. yard.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. The Corporation has also placed on record a brief data to justify the additional demand raised against the petitioners. There is no gain saying that the cost component of the plots cannot be restricted CWP No. 3679 of 2011 [4] to the cost of the land alone as the other relevant factors, namely, development charges, open areas left for public facilities, common facilities to be provided to the residents and recurring maintenance charges etc. are also the essential factors to be added to the cost price.
9. It deserves mention that initial allotment to the petitioners was made on tentative price only which is always subject to the final determination. Since there is no dispute that the impugned notices have been issued as a result of enhancement in compensation of the acquired land, the action of the Corporation cannot be termed per se arbitrary warranting any interference by us in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
10. The petitioners on the other hand contended that no demand towards enhanced cost of the acquired land has been raised against the subsequent allottees to whom some of the residential plots are said to have been sold/allotted @ ` 900/- per sq. yard. Since such allottees are not party-respondents before us and no specific pleadings in relation thereto have been made, it is not expedient for us to make any comment which may adversely affect the rights of such allottees. Suffice it would be to observe that most of the issues raised by the petitioners are seriously disputed question of facts which cannot be effectively adjudicated by us in these proceedings.
11. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that most of them have already deposited the enhanced amount pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2011 without CWP No. 3679 of 2011 [5] prejudice to their legal rights. In this view of the matter, while we clarify that the remaining petitioners may also deposit the enhanced amount as per the impugned demand notices without prejudice to their legal rights, however, they shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for determination of the mathematical calculation in relation to their liability as such facts based issues cannot be resolved in these summary proceedings.
With these observations, all these petitions stand disposed of.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
01.08.2012 (R.P.NAGRATH)
'ravinder' JUDGE