Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Chand And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 14 March, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996P&H84, AIR 1996 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 84, 1995 REVLR 2 304, (1996) 1 LANDLR 359, 1995 PUNJ LJ 349
ORDER
1. As common questions of law and fact arise in this bunch of 15 writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 6874, 6981, 7051, 7071, 8206, 8595, 8601 and 9911 of 1988 and C.W.P. Nos. 1684, 1809, 2105, 2530, 3919, 5664 and 15920 of 1989), these are being disposed of by one order. The main arguments were addressed in C.W.P. 6981 of 1988 and the facts are being taken from this writ petition.
2. By a notice published on 18-3-1985 in the leading newspapers, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short 'HUDA'), invited applications for the allotment of residential plots on freehold basis in Sector 13, Bhiwani, to the public in general and other sections of the society. The last date for the receipt of applications was 19-4-1985 and 19-6-1985 in the case of ex-servicemen and Indians posted in foreign embassies. The number of plots and their dimensions that were available for allotment and also the rate at which they were offered by HUDA, was as under:
S. No. Dimension Category _ No. of plots for_ BC WW/ESM HC FFGS Rate PSM(Rs.) Earnest Money (Rs.) GC DF/ESM SC
1. 19 X 45 mt. (2K) 18 4
--
--
--
--
--
--
206.25 17634
2. 15 X mt. (1K) 111 31
--
--
--
--
--
--
206.25 8663
3. 13 X 23 mt. (14M) 161 46
--
--
--
--
--
--
187.50 5606
4. 9.5 X 22 mt. (10M) 472 134
--
--
--
--
--
--
187.50 3919
5. 7.5 X 18 mt. (6M) 323 138
--
103 20 20 7 13168.75 2273
6. 6 X 16.5 mt. (4M) 103 44
--
33 6 6 2 4168.75 1671
7. 4 X 12.5 mt. (2M) 63 33
--
33 8 8 2 3168.75 844 The price/rate of the plots as mentioned above was tentative. Persons desirous of applying could do so on the prescribed form attached to the key plan folder available from all the Estate Offices in Haryana and Branches of authorised banks. The application form was required to be accompanied by earnest money. It had been clarified that in case the applications exceed the number of plots, the allotment will be made by a draw of lots, otherwise, the plot numbers shall be taken out by draw of lots. As regards the mode of payment, it was notified that 15% of the tentative price exclusive of the earnest money was required to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter without interest and the remaining 75% either in lump sum within 60 days or in the alternative the balance price could be paid in 6 equiated annual instalments along with interest @ 10% per annum. The interest was to be charged from the date of offer of possession. The details of other conditions of allotment was also mentioned in the notice. The petitioners submitted their application forms for the allotment of plots, whereby they stood registered with HUDA as applicants for allotment and they were informed about it. According to the petitioners, the allotment of plots was not made and after undue delay and without any justifiable reasons another notice was published on 17-7-1988 inviting fresh applications for the allotment of residential plots in Sector 13 and part of Sector 23 in the Urban Estate, Bhiwani on the rates much higher than the ones at which the plots were earlier offered. The number of plots and their dimensions along with tentative rates at which they were subsequently offered in July, 1988 as under:--
S. No. Size Tentative No. of plots Tentative rate P/sq. Mtr. (Rs.)
1.
2K(855 sq. Mtr.) 29 507.90
2. 1K(420 sq. Mtr.) 108 465.58
3. 14M(300 sq. Mtr.) 342 423.26
4. 10M(220 sq. Mtr.) 965 423.26
5. 6M(135 sq. Mtr.) 762 380.94
6. 4M(82.96 sq. Mtr.) 45 380.94 It was stated in the notice that applicants who had earlier deposited the amount (earlier money @ 10%) with the Estate Officer, Bhiwani in respect of Sector 13, were to apply a fresh and deposit the difference of earnest money with the Estate Officer at the new rates to make them eligible for the draw of lots. The petitioners were also informed individually that they were required to deposit the difference of 10% of earnest money at the new rates latest by 18-8-1988, so that their earlier registration be included in the draw of lots. I was informed at the time of hearing that most of petitioners applied afresh in pursuance to the advertisement issued in July 1988 and deposited the difference in the earnest money and that a large number of them have been allotted the plots at the enhanced rates. However, in the year 1988, they filed these writ petitions challenging the action of HUDA in issuing the subsequent notification in July 1988 inviting application for the allotment of residential plots at the enhanced rates.
3. In the written statement originally filed on behalf of the respondents, ii is pleaded that the advertisement issued in March, 1985 regarding Sector 13, Bhiwani, was at the tentative price of Rs. 156.95 per sq. yard, but the draw of lots could not take place because the land had not come in possession of HUDA at that time and it was only in the process of being acquired by the State Government under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The award relating to this price was announced on 18-11-1987 and, therefore, there had been some delay in the draw of lots. Increase in the tentative price of plots that were offered later for allotment was sought to be justified on the ground of heavy price escalation in the development cost as also increase in the cost of land. It is averred that earlier the total development cost was taken at Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre and the cost of land was Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Development cost had increased to Rs. 4,58,000/- per acre while the cost of land had increased to Rs. 87,768 per acre in the year 19S8. The respondent filed an additional written statement on 14-12-1988, in which it is submitted that the State Government had acquired the land for HUDA in Sectors 13 and 23 at Bhiwani and the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued on 3-11-1980 and 18-3-1981, respectively. It is further pleaded that some of the land owners whose land was sought to be acquired filed two writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos. 840 of 1985 and 442 of 1986) in this Court, challenging the acquisition proceedings. These writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 17-5-1985 and 6-3-1986 respectively and the notifications were quahsed. The State Government then issued fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 4-6-1986 and 15-4-1987 and the award was announced regarding Sector 13 on 10-11-1987 and regarding Sector 23 on 31-3-1988. In view of this background the stand taken by the respondents is that there had been no undue delay on their part in allotting the residential plots and until HUDA could get possession of the acquired land the allotment of plots in pursuance of the earlier advertisement issued in March, 1985 could not be made. In pursuance of an undertaking given before the Motion Bench, the respondents filed a further affidavit of Sh, Mohinder Nath Sharma, Chief Engineer, HUDA, giving the break-up and the reasons for incresed in the development charges in 1988. Enhanced price escalation, higher provisions for community buildings and special repair of roads etc. over and above the items of work considered during the year 1985 were stated to be the reasons for enhancement in the tentative price of plots that were offered for allotment in 1988. Annexure 'R1' attached with the affidavit of the Chief Engineer is the statement showing the details of development cost for Sectors 13 and 23 showing how it increased from Rs.2,15,000/- per acre to Rs. 4,58,000/- per acre.
4. The argument of Mr, H.S. Hooda, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that HUDA being a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be allowed to Act in an arbitrary manner and enhance the tentative price of the plots without any justifiable reasons. According to the learned counsel there was no justification for HUDA not to have made the allotment soon after the applications had been received in response to the notice published in March 1985 and if that had been done, the number of applicants being less than the total number of plots available for allotment, each one of them would have got a plot at the price initially fixed by HUDA. It is submitted that HUDA not having done this, cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrongs and charge enhanced price from persons like the petitioners on the plea that the development cost had escalated.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel, but regret my inability to accept the same. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that every Slate action in order to survive must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is always an obligation to act fairly on the part of an administrative authority like HUDA and this alone will ensure the rule of law and prevent the failure of justice. The question that arises for determination in the instant case is whether HUDA has actually acted arbitrarily. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case the answer to this question has to be in the negative. It could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioners that when the advertisement was issued in March, 1985 inviting applications for the allotment of residential plots in Sector 17 at Bhiwani, HUDA did not have possession of land with it and that it was excepted to get the same very soon. It could be said that HUDA should have first taken possession before inviting applications. Yes, that is how it should have been, but it must have thought that it would get the possession soon as the land had been acquired by the State Government. There is again no dispute that the notifications that were issued by State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 3-11-1980 and 18-3-1981 had been quashed by this Court at the instance of the land owners on 17-5-1986, as a consequence of which the State Govt. had to acquire the land afresh. The Land Acquisition Collector announced his award in Nov. 1987 and March, 1988 and it was thereafter that HUDA again re-advertised the plots for allotment. This time a part of Sector 23 had also been included because the demand for the plots had increased. In this background, it could not be said that HUDA deliberately delayed the allotment of plots and allowed the price escalation of the development charges. Obviously, in 1988 fresh applications were invited, the development cost had increased manifold as is clear from the record that was produced before me during the course of hearing. The detailed break-up of the increase has been mentioned by the competent authorities item wise. I cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that increase in the development cost was worked out arbitrarily by HUDA. The present is not a case where the plots stood allotted to the petitioners. They had only applied for allotment and their applications were registered. Because of the intervening factors which were beyond the control of HUDA, it could not rightly make the allotment in pursuance of the earlier notification and subsequently when applications were invited afresh the price having gone up, HUDA was juistified in claiming the enhanced price as also the difference, in the earnest money at the enhanced rate. Even in cases where an allotment is made and if the terms of the allotment entitle the concerned authority to enhance the price on account of the increase in the acquisition cost or otherwise it is open to the allotting authority to demand the enhanced price from allottees. Mr. HUDA, strongly relied on the judgment in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601 : 1993 AIR SCW 1509. In this case their Lordships held that in comractual matters the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held that even through the highest tenderer can claim no right to have his tender accepted and there being power with the authority to reject all tenders, yet the power to reject the tender cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must depend for its validity on the existence of cogent reasons. This decision has no applicability to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel relied on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab 1979 PLR 413 : AIR 1980 P & H 65. In this case the State Government notified a scheme for the allotment of plots and the petitioners therein had applied for the same. They were not successful in the draw of lots and they challenged the action on the ground that the method of draw of lots could not be restored to. Their contention was rejected and it was held that Rule 5.3 of the Punjab Urban Estates (Sale of Sites) Rules 1965 did not exclude such a method for allotment. It was then contended that for the subsequent schemes framed by the State Government, it could not claim enhanced rate from the petitioners. This contention too was negatived by the learned Judges of the Full Bench any they observed that the price on which the plots were to be allotted under the first shcme ceased to be the price in respect of the plots which were to be allotted under the subsequent schemes. This judgment also does not help the petitioners, Again, reliance was placed on Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 1031, Nikka Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988 PLJ 508 and Royal Bank Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited v. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) PLR 223.1 have gone through these cases and in my opinion they do not help the petitioners. In Royal Bank Employees case 1992 (1) PLR 223 (supra), applications had been invited for allotment of residential plots/flats and HUDA extended the last date for the receipt of applications without any cogent reasons and its action was struck down by this Court on the ground that it was arbitrary. In the instant case HUDA had valid reasons for not allotting the plots in pursuance of the notification issued in March 1985 and, therefore, its action is not arbitrary.
6. In the result, there is no merit in the writ petitions and they all stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
7. Petitions dismissed.