Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Ors. vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... on 28 August, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)135PLR772
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: H.S. Bedi, Satish Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 248 of 2002, 5550 of 2002, 8697 of 2002, 10227 of 2002. 12219 of 2002 and 768 of 2003, which pertain to Market Committee, Shahabad and CWP No. 11386 of 2002 which pertains to New Grain Market, Barwala. In all these cases, common questions of fact and law are involved. Hence, with the consent of the parties, all these cases are being disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from CWP No. 248 of 2002.
2. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short, 'the Board') established New Vegetable market at Shahabad and New Grain Market at Barwala. In the year 2000, the Board decided to allot a number of plots in these markets by way of public auction. The petitioners participated in the said auction held on 4.1.2000 and they were allotted the plots being the highest bidders. They deposited 25% of the auction money at the time of bid and the remaining 75% was to be paid by them in six half-yearly instalments along with 15% interest per annum from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Allotment letters in the case of the present petitioners were issued on 30.6.2001. As per Clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered to the petitioners within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter. As per Clause 14 of the allotment letter, the petitioners were required to raise construction as per the approved design within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession.
3. The petitioners have filed the present petition contending that the respondent-Board has not provided the basic amenities/facilities in the New Markets such as water and Sewerage connections etc. The case of the petitioners is that after issuance of the allotment letter, till today no development work has been carried out in the New Markets. No facility of sewerage line, water supply line and electricity supply has been provided. It is further the case of the petitioners that in absence of the aforesaid basic amenities, the petitioners could not raise construction on the plots. Even if they raise construction, it is not possible to live and run business on the site without the aforesaid facilities. The petitioners further submitted that the respondents included in the price of the plots the expenses to be incurred by them for providing the aforesaid facilities, therefore, they are bound to provide these facilities. Inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioners, the respondents did not care to provide any facility in the New Markets, but on the other hand they are pressing hard for depositing the instalments upto date with interest and penal interest. Under these circumstances, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to provide the basic amenities and other facilities in the aforesaid New Markets, and till such facilities are provided, no interest and penal interest can be charged from the petitioners.
4. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent-Board field the written statement in which it has not been denied that the basic amenities have not been provided to the petitioners. It has, however, been stated that with regard to the supply of water and sewerage connections, some amount has been sanctioned by the respondent-Board and the respondent-Board is taking steps to complete the work and it will take some more time to provide these amenities to the petitioners.
5. From he aforesaid admission, it is clear that neither the water supply facility nor the sewerage facility is available in these New Markets. No construction is possible without these facilities. These are the basic amenities, which the respondents should have provided to the allottees before offering the possession of the plots to them. In absence of these basic amenities, the petitioners could neither raise any construction nor could enjoy the plots purchased by them in the public auction.
6. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, learned counsel for the petitions submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by decision dated 5.6.1993 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Makhan Lal Dalip Singh etc. v. H.S.A.M.B. and Anr., in C.W.P. No. 4241 of 1992. The learned counsel further submitted that the plots in question have been auctioned by the respondent-Board under the Rules called Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property). Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and these Rules have been amended vide Notification dated 5th March, 2002 whereby the amendments have been made in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 and Rule 5. After the amendment, Sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 reads as under:-
(5) the balance seventy-five per cent of the price of plot may either be deposited without interest within thirty days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six half-yearly instalments, with fifteen per cent interest, or at such rate of interest as may be specified by the Board from time to time. The first such instalment shall fall due after six months from the date of allotment letter. However, interest on instalments shall accrue from the date of offer of possession.
(Under line added by amendment).
Rule 5 reads as under:-
5. The possession of the plot shall be offered to the allottee by the Executive officer-cum-Secretary, Market committee within thirty days from the date of issue of allotment letter, if minimum basic facility i.e. roads, water supply, electrification are existing and if the said basic facilities are not existing, then after providing the said facilities.
(Underline added by amendment).
7. Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that according to the aforesaid amended Rules, the respondent-Board is duty bound to provide the facilities in the newly established market before offering the possession to the allottees, and only then the possession of the plots can be offered to them. Till then, the Board is not entitled to recover any interest on the instalments.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had purchased the plots in question in public auction and they were required to deposit 75% of the price of the plots within a period of 30 days from the receipt of allotment letter or in six half-yearly instalments along with interest as per the schedule given in the allotment letter. Therefore, the allottees are bound to pay the interest on instalments in spite of the fact whether any facilities have been provided in the newly established markets or not.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that the respondent-Board is duty-bound to provide all the facilities like roads, water and sewerage connections etc, in the newly established market before the possession of the plots is offered to the allottees, and until and unless such facilities are provided to the allottees, the Board is not entitled to charge interest on the instalments as so provided by the amended Rule 5 of the Rules. The petitioners are not in a position either to raise construction or enjoy the benefits of plot in absence of all these basic facilities like roads, electrification, water and sewerage connections etc. Even if the petitioners raise construction over the plots after taking possession thereof, thy will not be fit for reserve price of the plots, the respondents have included in it the cost of developments. Now, they cannot delay the development works. They were required to provide the basic facilities, as proposed in their sanctioned plan of the New Grain Market within a reasonable period from the date of auction, now two and half years have expired, but the respondents have not provided the basic facilities like water supply and sewerage supply to the plot holders. In these specific circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to charge interest and penal interest from the petitioners on the amount of instalments and non-payment of the instalments in time."
10. In view of the aforesaid amendment of the Rules and the law laid down by this Court in the above case as well as in Makhan Lal Dalip Singh etc. v. H.S.A.M.B. and Anr. (supra), we allow these writ petitions with the directions to the respondents to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and other facilities, as mentioned in the sanctioned building plans, to all the plot holders in the New Markets at Shahabad and Barwala, within a period of one year. It is further directed that the respondents would not charge interest and penal interest from the petitioners till the water and sewerage facilities are provided to them in these New Markets. It is also made clear that the petitioners will raise construction on the allotted plots as per the approved design within a period of two years from the date of providing of the water and sewerage facilities in the New Grain Markets. However, in the meanwhile the petitioners will continue to pay instalments of the price already fixed without interest. The clause of interest would come into operation after the facilities of water and sewerage supplies are provided to the petitioners in the New Markets. If the petitioners commit any default in marking payment of instalments. They will be liable to pay interest on the said default as pro vided in the allotment letter. Whatever instalments have fallen due till today, the petitioners shall pay the same to the respondents within a period of two months. If any new default in the payment of instalments is committed, the petitioners would be liable to pay interest as provided in the allotment letter.
Sd-
H.S. Bedi, J.