Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... vs Subhash Chand And Others on 29 October, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AT
CHANDIGARH
*****
Date of Decision: 29.10.2013
Letters Patent Appeal No. 513 of 2010
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ... Appellants
Versus
Subhash Chand and others ... Respondents
AND
Letters Patent Appeal No.516 of 2010
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ... Appellants
Versus
Indra and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate (in CWP No.513 of 2010)
and Mr. Manoj Kumar Taya, Advocate (in CWP No.516 of 2010)
for the respondents.
MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN, J.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 513 of 2010, 'Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others Versus Subhash Chand and others' and Letters Patent Appeal No.516 of 2010, 'Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others Versus Indra and another', having arisen from a common order dated 09.09.2009 and in view of commonality of facts and law, are proposed to be Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -2- disposed of by this common judgment being passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 513 of 2010, 'Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others Versus Subhash Chand and others'.
Brief facts:
Shop Plots in Grain Market, Pipli, District Kurukshetra, were allotted by the Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board (for short 'the Marketing Board') to the contesting respondents, at reserved price i.e. Rs.2,33,800/- each plot in a draw of lots, held on 18.11.1992 as per policy in vogue at that time.
As directed by the appellant No.2-Market Committee, contesting respondents deposited Rs.58,500/- each, being 25% of the total price of the plots, within 30 days. Balance 75% of the price of the plots was to be paid either in one lump sum, without interest, within one month of the date of issue of letter of allotment or in six equated half yearly installments with 12.5% per annum interest. The contesting respondents were waiting for issuance of letters of allotment but, in the meantime, on 11.12.1992, certain persons, who were not satisfied with the outcome of draw of lots, filed Civil Writ Petition No.16198 of 1992 alleging that persons other than "Growers" were allowed to participate in the draw of lots and the plots were allotted to them without any justification.
On 11.12.1992, this Court passed the following order: -
"Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the persons other than growers have been allowed to participate in the draw of lots.
Notice of motion for 18.01.1993.
Draw of lots be not finalized concerning growers."Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -3-
Undisputedly, the contesting respondents were ready and willing to deposit the balance 75% of the price of the plots and even one of them, namely, Rulda Ram, vide his letter dated 06.12.1995, had offered to deposit the balance 75% of the price of the plot allotted to him but, vide letter dated 15.12.1995 appellant No.2 had intimated him as under: -
"In reference to your application dated 06.12.1995, you are hereby informed that there is a stay on the allotment of Grower category by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. You will be informed as soon as this case will be decided. Along with this, you are also informed that remaining installment will be determined after the allotment of plot and construction cannot take place without allotment."
The appellants did not accept the balance 75% amount from the contesting respondents on the ground that the afore-mentioned Civil Writ Petition was pending in this Court, which, admittedly, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.02.2008. The contesting respondents then moved applications before appellant No.2 for allotment of plots to them. Their applications were processed and the matter was placed before appellant No.1 in its 182nd meeting held on 17.06.2008 vide following agenda item:-
"Approval of plots sold through draw of lots to the growers held on 18.11.1992 of Market Committee, Pipli.
It was stated price of land and shops have increased many times since 1993 and proposed that 75% price of plot has not been recovered till now Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -4- and Market Committee/Board suffered a loss in shape of interest, therefore, this interest should be included in the reserve price which is to be charged from allottees."
The first appellant approved the agenda item in the following terms:-
"Approved. The rate of interest should be charged as per policy of the Board."
Though as per above-cited decision of appellant No.1 only interest was to be charged on the balance 75% of the price of the plots as per policy of the appellant-Board but the 2nd appellant, vide orders dated 07.10.2008 (Annexures P-7 to P-16 in CWP No.18632 of 2008 and Annexure P-7 in CWP No.21689 of 2008) conveyed to the contesting respondents that the appellant Board had approved the draw of lots and reserved price of the plots had been fixed at Rs. 20,36,300/- per plot and accordingly asked them to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,50, 575/- each to make good the deficiency in 25% of the total price of the plot so as to enable issuance of letters of allotment by the Marketing Board.
To challenge orders dated 07.10.2008 (Annexures P-7 to P-16 in CWP No.18632 of 2008 and Annexure P-7 in CWP No.21689 of 2008), Civil Writ Petition Nos.18632 of 2008 and 21689 of 2008 were filed by the contesting respondents which were disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 09.09.2009 in the following manner:-
"In view of facts mentioned above, these writ Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -5- petitions are allowed. Orders Annexures P-7 to P-16 (in CWP No.18632 of 2008) and Annexure P-7 (in CWP No.21689 of 2008) are set aside only to the extent of fixing price of the plots. The authorities are directed to re-determine amount due, from the contesting respondents, by imposing interest @ 12.5% (simple) per annum regarding balance 75% amount of the price of the plots from 01.01.1993. On intimation, the contesting respondents shall deposit that amount in lump sum within one month. Counsel for the contesting respondents state that some of the contesting respondents had already deposited the amount in question. Disposed of."
As afore-said, to assail correctness of order dated 09.09.2009 the appellants have invoked Clause X of the Letters Patent by way of the instant Letters Patent Appeals.
Contesting respondents are contesting the appeals.
We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and have also perused the record, including the order of the learned Single Judge.
Order passed by the learned Single Judge is assailed by the learned counsel representing the appellants on the ground that the finalization of draw of lots was stayed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.1992 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 16198 of 1992 and by the time that Civil Writ Petition was decided a new policy/rules had come into effect where-under there was no provision for allotment of plots on reserve price and that being so, action of the appellants in demanding price as prevalent at the time of allotment of the plots, Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -6- i.e., in the year 2008, cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary but the learned Single judge has erroneously overlooked this aspect of the matter.
Nonetheless, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents defend the impugned order saying that the contesting respondents have always been ready and willing to deposit the balance 75% of the price of the plots but the appellants have been putting them off on the plea that a civil writ petition questioning the outcome of draw of lots was pending consideration before this Court. The learned counsel point out that one of the contesting respondents namely, Rulda Ram, vide his letter dated 06.12.1995, offered to deposit the balance 75% of the price of the plot allotted to him but, vide letter dated 15.12.1995, appellant No.2 turned down his offer on the pretext of pendency of the above-mentioned civil writ petition. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, demand of price of the plots at the rates prevalent in the year 2008 cannot be said to be justified and the contesting respondents are entitled to allotment of the plots at the price prevalent in the year 1992 when the draw of lots was held.
The learned Single Judge approached the matter in the following manner:-
"This Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondent-Board is absolutely harsh and unjustifiable. Entitlement and eligibility of the contesting respondents is to be seen as on 18.11.1992, when draw of lots was conducted, wherein plots was allotted to them. They also deposited 25% amount of the price fixed by the Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -7- Board. However, letters of allotment were not issued to them on account of a fact that some persons had filed a writ petition in this Court, wherein the Board was restrained from finalizing the draw of lots. In the meantime, even offer was made by some of the contesting respondents to deposit the balance 75% amount, towards price of the plot. However, by making reference to the pending writ petition, amount was not accepted. That writ petition was dismissed on 29.02.2008. Thereafter, the process regarding allotment of plots was initiated. No objection was raised regarding eligibility and entitlement of the contesting respondents. The matter went up to the respondent No.2 (the Board) and in its meeting dated 17.06.2008, the respondent -Board gave approval to the selling of plots, to the contesting respondents, as per draw of lots held on 18.11.1992. It was further approved that rate of interest be charged as per policy of the Board. Obviously, it means that on the balance amount, interest was to be imposed and the property was not to be sold at the prevalent market price."
We have not been able to take a view different from that of the learned Single Judge because the appellants had offered plots to the contesting respondents at reserve price as prevalent at the time of draw of lots which was held on 18.11.1992 and not only this Court had refused to set aside the result of that draw of lots but the first appellant also approved it in its 182nd meeting held on 17.06.2008 only with a rider that interest on the balance amount of Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -8- 75% of the price of the plots was to be charged as per policy of the appellant- Board and while the contesting respondents have throughout been ready and willing to pay that 75% amount, but the appellants have been refusing to accept it by citing pendency of Civil Writ Petition No. 16198 of 1992 as reason for such refusal. It is, however, nobody's case that the contesting respondents were either ineligible for allotment of plots in their favour or that the offers of allotment in their favour were found to be bad in law or that the contesting respondents did not accept the offers or that the contesting respondents intentionally delayed payment of the balance amount of price of the plots. Rather, to the contrary, the contesting respondents agreed before the learned Single Judge to pay interest on the balance amount of price of the plots even though they are not liable to pay it till after expiry of one month from the date of issue of letters of allotments in their favour. Therefore, the impugned order can not be faulted with.
We, however, find that the learned Single Judge has not ordered refund of the excess amount, if any, to the contesting respondents after calculating simple interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum on the balance amount. We, therefore, direct that the appellants shall calculate interest (simple) at the rate of 12.5% per annum on the balance amount and refund to the contesting respondents excess amount, if any charged from them, within two months from today, failing which the amount so payable shall carry interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of expiry of two months from today till actual payment.
Virender Singh Adhikari 2013.11.22 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. Nos.513 & 516 of 2010 -9-
With above modification in the impugned order, both the Letter Patent Appeals fail and are dismissed.
No costs.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
29.10.2013
adhikari
Virender Singh Adhikari
2013.11.22 10:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh