Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority & ... vs Hans Raj Chhabra & Ors on 30 May, 2013
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision:-30.05. 2013
Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.
......Appellants.
Versus
Hans Raj Chhabra & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for
Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.(ORAL)
Defendants/appellants are in second appeal against the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below whereby the suit filed by respondent Hans Raj Chabbra and others for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Panchkula vide judgment dated 22.04.2009 and the findings thereof were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009.
Facts in brief are that SCO site no.196, Sector 16, Panchkula was allotted to the respondents vide allotment letter dated 26.08.1995 in an RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M) #2# open auction held by Haryana Urban Development Authority for a consideration of Rs.70,64,000/-. 10% of the bid amount i.e. Rs.7,06,400/- was paid by the respondent at the fall of hammer. On 25.08.1995 while 15% of the amount i.e. 10,59,600/- was paid in time as per the allotment letter. That after possession was given to the respondents on 26.09.1995 the building plans were approved by Haryana Urban Development Authority on 12.01.1996 and the respondents raised the construction as per the sanctioned plan. The balance amount of Rs.52,98,000/- i.e. 75% of the price was to be paid in eight equal half yearly installments which included interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the balance price. However, as per note appended to the letter of allotment, it was stipulated that in case allottee fails to make payment on due date, the penal interest @ 18% per annum shall be charged for the delayed period. Since the respondent allottees had defaulted in payment of due installments, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula vide its ex-parte order dated 01.05.2001 ordered the resumption of the property in question. The respondents filed the statutory appeal and the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide its order dated 26.06.2003 granted stay of operation of resumption order dated 01.05.2001. However, inspite of the stay, the Estate Officer, HUDA started proceedings under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act on 28.02.2003 and 19.06.2003 despite the respondents/allottees having paid almost the entire sale price including the interest at the rate of 15% on the delayed payments of the due installments and thus, constraining the respondents to file the aforesaid civil suit.
The suit of the respondents/plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22.04.2009 and the impugned resumption order/notices were declared null and void. The defendants/appellants on the deposit of RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M) #3# the remaining balance amount along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum by the plaintiffs was directed to issue the occupation certificate and further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property. The appeal filed by the defendant-HUDA was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2009. Hence the present second appeal.
At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellants/defendants has confined his argument to the effect that the appellant-HUDA is entitled to 18% penal interest as per the allotment letter dated 26.08.1995 on account of the delayed payments of installments made by the respondents/plaintiffs.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has very fairly conceded that the plaintiffs would pay 18% simple interest on the delayed payment of the due installments as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roochica Ceramic Vs. HUDA & Others Supreme Court Cases 2002(9) 599 and duly followed by this Court in Gian Inder Sharma Vs. HUDA 2003(1) PLR 141. He has further referred to a policy instructions dated 15.01.1987, as per which 18% simple interest is to be charged on the delayed payments made by the allottee. This fact has further been affirmed by the appellants by way of affidavit dated 28.05.2013 executed by Ashwani Kumar, Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula which is already on record as Annexure Mark-B along with the policy dated 15.01.1987 as Annexure A-1 vide order dated 29.05.2013. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent has pleaded that in view of the consistent policy of the HUDA, the rate of 18% simple interest made should include the interest at the rate of 15% on the delayed payments already made. The Counsel further undertakes to make the payment after the RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M) #4# appellant HUDA draws up fresh calculations in view of the aforesaid and further, in case of any other outstanding amount that also remains, shall be paid within a reasonable time of 8 weeks of raising such demands.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal can be disposed of with a modification to the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below because of the agreed stand amongst the parties. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondents/plaintiffs have already paid a sum of Rs.88,52,075/- against a total price of Rs.70,64,000/- from 28.08.1999 till 11.10.2003. It is further not in dispute that the said amount was paid under the orders passed by the Chief Administrator HUDA. The total amount to the tune of Rs.88,52,075/- includes interest on the delayed payments at the rate of 15% per annum. Thus, in view of the above facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed and decree is modified to the extent that the respondents/plaintiffs/allottees shall be liable to pay 18% simple interest on the delayed payments of installments as per the HUDA policy dated 15.01.1987 Annexure A-1 which is appended with the affidavit of the Estate Officer dated 28.05.2013, calculated from the date they became due till the date of payment of delayed installments. In view of the fact that respondents/plaintiffs have already made delayed payment of the due installments along with 15% interest, the amount of remaining 3% shall be calculated by the appellant HUDA and intimated to the allottee, who shall thereafter, within 2 months of such intimation, shall deposit the same.
Accordingly CM No.4003-C of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is also dismissed as withdrawn due to the aforementioned circumstances.
RSA No.1347 of 2010(O&M) #5# In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 30, 2013 Vinay