Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Piari vs Haryana Urban Development Authority ... on 24 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR241
Author: Sarojnei Saksena
Bench: Sarojnei Saksena
JUDGMENT Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Short point involved in this petition is whether the respondents can charge interest on the delayed payment of instalments of auction price of Rs. 4.51 lakhs of the plot purchased by the petitioner from the respondents.
2. Petitioner's assertain is that she along with Balwant Singh purchased plot No. 31(P) in residential-cum-commercial area, Mandi Township, Fatehabad, District Hisar, in an open auction at a sale price of Rs. 4.51 lakhs. Letter of allotment dated 24.2.1988 (Annexure P1) was issued to them in respect thereof. Out of the total sale price of the plot, Rs. 45,100/- were deposited by the petitioner at the time of bid and another sum of Rs. 67,650/- was deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment (Annexure P1). After paying 25% of the total sale price of the said plot, the balance amount of Rs. 3,38,250/- was payable in six equal annual instalments. The first instalment was payable after the expiry of one year of the date of letter of allotment (Annexure P1). Each instalment was recoverable together with interest @ 10% per annum on the balance price of the plot. Petitioner's contention is that she has already paid total amount of Rs. 3,38,250/-. The respondents, however, illegally, arbitrarily and with mala-fide intention initiated proceedings under Section 17 of the Haryana Urban development Authority Act, 1977 (in short 'the Act') to resume the plot in question on the ground of non-payment of interest. Respondent No. 3 passed the order (Annexure P2) dated 21.5.1996 for resumption of the plot although no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before the passing of that order. The petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.5.1997 (Annexure P3). Petitioner's contention is that both the orders, Annexures P2 and P3, are patently illegal and liable to be quashed.
3. According to the petitioner, as per the terms of the allotment letter (Annexure P1), interest @ 10 per cent per annum on the balance sale price of the plot is recoverable only from the date of offer of possession which could be made only after developing the area but the respondents neither carried out the development nor was the possession offered to her and therefore, the impugned action is without jurisdiction. Hence, she has prayed that a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction be issued declaring the action of the respondent-authorities in charging interest on the delayed payments of the instalments without offering possession of plot in question as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and ultra vires the provisions of the Act as well as the terms of allotment letter (Annexure P1). She has also prayed that the respondents be directed to deliver the possession of the plot in question to her as she has paid the full price of the said plot.
4. Respondent No. 3 has filed written statement and has denied the relevant averments made in the writ petition. It is inter alia, averred therein that if the petitioner would have deposited the instalments within the time as mentioned in the allotment letter (Annexure P1), no interest would have been charged thereon, but as she failed to deposit the instalments within the stipulated time, respondent No. 3 is legally entitled to charge interest on the delayed payments as per the HUDA Rules and Regulations. It is clearly mentioned in column 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1) that the petitioner is bound to pay the instalments as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It is also pleaded that no interest on offer of possession was charged from the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to deposit the instalments within the stipulated time, the plot in question was resumed as per condition No. 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1). It is also pleaded that proper notices under Section 17(1), 17(2), 17(3) and 17(4) of the Act were issued to the petitioner, but neither the petitioner deposited the instalments due nor she submitted any reply. These notices were sent through registered post and were not received back undelivered. Hence, the order (Annexure P2) was passed on 21.5.1996.
5. The petitioner's learned counsel drew our attention to condition No. 5 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1) and submitted that as the offer of possession was not given to the petitioner till date, the respondents are not entitled to recover interest at the rate of 10 per cent on the balance price. He submitted that even the area of the plot in question has not been developed by the respondents although they were bound to do so in terms of condition No. 6 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1). The petitioner's counsel also submitted that no notices alleged to have been sent by respondent No. 3 were ever received by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have no legal right to charge interest on delayed payment of the instalments due from the petitioner and the order of resumption passed due to the petitioner's failure to pay the interest is null and void. He placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Baij Nath Garg v. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 261 and Bhupinder Kumar Gupta v. Haryana Urban development Authority and Anr., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 275.
6. Respondent's learned counsel countenanced the arguments advanced by the petitioner's learned counsel and submitted that in terms of condition No. 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1), the petitioner was liable to pay each instalment by the 10th of the month following the month which it fell due. In this case, she failed to do. Therefore, the Estate Officer was justified in taking action for imposition of penalty and resumption of plot in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. He submitted that the order of resumption is legal and proper because the petitioner not only failed to pay in accordance with the condition of allotment but she persisted with default even after service of various notices.
7. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the considered view, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Conjoint reading of conditions 5 and 6 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1) makes it clear that the respondents were under a legal obligation to offer possession of the auctioned plot to the purchasers after completing the development work in the area. Further, from condition No. 5, it is apparent that each delayed instalment would be recoverable together with interest @ 10% but it provides specifically that:
"The interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession." Concededly, in this case, possession of the plot in dispute is not offered to the petitioner by the respondents till date. In fact, the respondents' learned counsel candidly admitted that till date no development work has been effected in the area of the plot in question. Condition No. 8 of the allotment letter (Annexure P1), to which reference has been made by the respondents learned counsel, only provides for imposition of penalty and resumption of the plot in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. This condition is controlled by conditions No. 5 and 6 ibid. Hence, in our considered view, as neither the area has been developed by the respondents nor possession of the plot in question has been offered to the petitioner till date, the respondents are not entitled to recover interest @ 10 per cent on the balance sale price from the petitioner and for its non-payment they are also not legally entitled to resume the plot Under Section 17 of the Act.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders (Annexures P2 and P3) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to deliver possession of the said plot to the petitioner within three months from the date on which copy of this order is submitted to them, after making the requisite development in the said area.