Punjab-Haryana High Court
Somesh Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Others on 12 August, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12580 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION : 12.08.2013
Somesh Gupta
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Tushar Sharma and Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Indresh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 to 4.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioner was allotted plot No. 125, Sector 21, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, vide allotment letter dated 8.4.1986 (Annexure P-1), out of the discretionary quota of the Government. Later on, the said allotment was cancelled in the year 1987. Thereafter, the aforesaid plot was again restored to the petitioner in the year 1990. The petitioner could not deposit 75% amount by way of instalments within the stipulated time. The issue in this case was with regard to the rate of interest and the date of charging the Dass Narotam 2013.08.13 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 12580 of 2008 -2- interest from the petitioner, which was decided by the revisional authority, vide order dated 2.1.2006 (Annexure P-20), while observing as under :
"From the facts and circumstances narrated by both the parties it is also clear that the allottee failed to pay outstanding instalments of the plot as well as enhanced/additional price demanded from him from time to time by HUDA. It is also true that no penalty was imposed and no resumption proceedings were initiated by HUDA in this case for such a long time. It is admitted that additional price demanded from the allottee is a part and parcel of the price of the plot but the same is being demanded only if price of the land on which the plot is situated is enhanced by the competent court of law under land acquisition proceedings. HUDA has to pay 15% p.a simple interest on the enhanced amount to be paid to the land owners. Therefore, I consider that it is justified to re-calculate the enhanced/additional price demanded from the allottee alongwith simple 15% interest instead of compound interest.
It is true that after the judgment of Kanta Devi Budhiraja's case HUDA has recently amended its policy of charging outstanding dues alongwith 18% simple interest instead of compound interest w.e.f. 03.04.2000 (i.e. from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court) instead of 1.9.2000. The said rate of interest has further been reduced from 18% to 14% w.e.f. 15.11.2002. In the present case the allottee failed to pay even the original price of the plot for a long time. Therefore, the outstanding dues of instalments be arrived as per latest decision of the Authority.
As per HUDA policy two years' time is given to the allottee for construction after the date of offer of possession of Dass Narotam 2013.08.13 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 12580 of 2008 -3- the plot. In the present case offer of possession of the plot is to be deemed as 12.08.1996. Therefore, the allottee is liable to pay non-construction fee w.e.f. 12.08.1998.
The amount deposited by the allottee with the Chief Administrator on 05.08.2002 if credited in HUDA accounts be taken into account while arriving at the outstanding dues.
After taking above observations into consideration, a fresh calculation of the outstanding dues against the petitioner be made by the Estate Officer and conveyed to the allottee within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The allottee will deposit the same with the Estate Officer within 30 days from the receipt of freshly calculated dues. In case of failure of allottee to deposit the outstanding dues in the given time, the Estate Officer shall take action U/s 17 of HUDA Act for resumption of the plot."
The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 4304 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated November 10, 2006 (Annexure P-21), while passing the following order :
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the primary grievance of the petitioner is against certain factual errors which are claimed to have crept into the order dated January 2, 2006 passed by the respondent No.1. If that be so, the petitioner should approach respondent No.1 by filing an appropriate application for correction of aforesaid orders.
For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a detailed and comprehensive review application Dass Narotam 2013.08.13 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 12580 of 2008 -4- before respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. If any such review application is filed by the petitioner, then respondent No.1 shall look into the said application and take a final decision thereupon on the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioner without rejecting the same on any technicalities and on the ground of delay.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly."
Consequently, the petitioner filed review application before the revisional authority. The said application was dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure P-22).
According to the aforesaid two orders dated 2.1.2006 and 22.2.2008 (Annexures P-20 and P-22), the petitioner was liable to pay compound interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 18% from the year 1990 to 2.4.2000; simple interest at the rate of 18% from 3.4.2000 to 14.11.2000; simple interest at the rate of 14% from 15.11.2000 to 31.12.2005; and simple interest at the rate of 12% from 1.1.2006 till the final payment.
In the present petition, at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 22.7.2008, the petitioner confined his prayer with regard to interest only.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the decisions of this Court in Smt. Kanta Devi Budhiraja v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 (2) PLR 688, Haryana Urban Development Authority Dass Narotam 2013.08.13 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 12580 of 2008 -5- and another v. Vinod Mittal and others (LPA No. 933 of 2009, decided on 16.10.2012) and Prem Singh and another v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another (CWP No. 16558 of 2009, decided on 11.7.2013), argued that the respondents have no legal right to charge compound interest from the year 1990 to 2.4.2000 only on the basis of instructions dated 19.9.1985. The petitioner is ready to pay simple interest for the said period. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents state that the HUDA has changed its policy with effect from 3.4.2000 to charge simple interest, instead of compound interest, as per the details given above. Therefore, before the said date, they are competent to charge compound interest as per the earlier instructions dated 19.9.1985.
The issue of charging compound interest prior to the year 2000 was considered by this Court in Prem Singh's case (supra) and it was held that the HUDA has no legal sanction and authority to charge compound interest from the allottee under the old instructions dated 19.9.1985. Learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert this legal position and cite any contrary judgment. Hence, to that extent, the order of the revisional authority is modified.
As far as simple interest with effect from 3.4.2000 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will pay the same on the delayed payment as per the HUDA policy, at the rate of 18% from 3.4.2000 to 14.11.2000; 14% from 15.11.2000 to 31.12.2005; and Dass Narotam 2013.08.13 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 12580 of 2008 -6- 12% from 1.1.2006 onwards. The petitioner further undertakes to pay simple interest at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount claimed by the HUDA on account of enhancement of the acquisition cost. So far as the extension fee is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner is liable to pay the same from 12.8.1996 as per the HUDA policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this factual position.
In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with modification of the orders dated 2.1.2006 and 22.2.2008 (Annexures P-20 and P-22), passed by the revisional authority, to the extent that instead of charging compound interest on the delayed amount from the year 1990 till 2.4.2000 and for the rest of the period, the petitioner will pay simple interest at different rates, as indicated above. The respondents will calculate interest accordingly and intimate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, and the petitioner will clear the outstanding dues within a further period of one month.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 12, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2013.08.13 11:32
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document