Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lt. Col. Yash Pal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority on 23 May, 2001
Author: N.K. Sud
Bench: N.K. Sud
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner is member of the Armed Forces. On April 15, 1991, he applied for allotment of a plot to Haryana Urban Development Authority. On August 5, 1991 he was allotted plot No. 3119-P, Sector 23, Sonepat. A copy of the letter of allotment has been produced as Annexure P-1. The petitioner was required to pay the price of Rs. 2,53,110/-. 25% of the price had been paid before the issue of the letter of allotment. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,89,832/- had to be paid in six annual installments. Interest @ 10% had to be paid on this amount. In case of delay, the interest was to be charged @ 18% per annum.
2. The petitioner paid the entire price of the plot. Despite that the possession was not given to him. The petitioner was driven to surrender the plot and seek the refund of the amount. Since his request was not being accepted, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the respondents be directed to accept the surrender and refund the entire amount alongwith interest @ 18%. The petitioner also claim damages.
3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been averred that in accordance with the terms of allotment, the possession had to be offered on completion of the development works. After the needful had been done, the petitioner was actually offered possession vide letter dated October 4, 2000. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure R-1 with the written statement. It has been further averred that Sector 23 has an area of 421.15 acres of land. It is a big Sector. Thus it took time.
4. Mr. Manjit Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the action of the respondents in not offering the possession of the plot for a period of more than 9 years after the allotment is wholly arbitrary. The provision in Clause 7 of the letter of allotment does not empower the Authority to make the allottee wait till eternity. The possession has to be offered within a reasonable-time. The respondents have failed to give possession till the petitioner surrendered the plot. The petitioner's prayer, as made in the petition, should be accepted, he further submits that the costs of construction has risen considerably. The petitioner shall not be able to now construct the house on this plot. The counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 11598 of 1999 (B.L Gupta v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.) decided on November 13, 2000.
5. Ms. Reminder Gadhoke, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in Clause 7 of the letter of allotment, the authority had reserved a specific power to offer plot after completion of development works. This promise has been duly kept. Thus, the relief as prayed for by the petitioner, should be declined.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the respondents have taken un- duly long period of more than 9 years to offer the possession. No explanation for this inordinate delay has been given. The petitioner's money has been kept by the respondents for all this time. He has been able to derive no advantage out of it. In the meantime, the cost of construction has arisen. The petitioner has suffered loss on account of the inaction of the respondents.
7. We have also perused the judgment in B.L. Gupta's case (supra), the facts of the present case are identical to those as given in the case decided by the Bench. For the reasons stated in the order, we find that this writ petition has to be allowed. We do so.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the money to the petitioner within one month from today alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. The petitioner shall also be entitled to his costs.