Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 September, 2014
Author: Kuldip Singh
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kuldip Singh
CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13928 of 2007
Date of Decision : 2.9.2014
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH
Present:- Mr. Deepak Sibal, Senior Advocate, with,
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
KULDIP SINGH, J.
10000 sq. yds. land situated in Development Scheme No. 1 (Giani Zail Singh Nagar) Ropar was allotted to the petitioner-Company, vide letter dated November 11, 1988. The entire sale consideration and the enhanced sale consideration was paid. Allotment letters dated 11.11.1988 and 3.5.1989 (Annexures-P-1 and P-2) were issued. An amount of ` 28,00,000/- demanded on 23.8.1999 on account of non construction fee was not paid. The plot was resumed on 20.4.2000. The petitioner- SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -2- Company made various representations against said order. The extension fee of `57,88,000/- was demanded on 10.4.2001, which was opposed by the petitioner-Company. Vide letter dated December 26, 2001 (Annexure- P-12), the petitioner-Company was informed that the non construction charges qua the petitioner-Company have been waived off. The petitioner- Company submitted revised drawing for approval of the respondent-Trust. The petitioner-Company wrote a letter dated 13.8.2002 (Annexure-P-15) to the respondent-Trust to execute the Conveyance Deed. On 30.9.2002, a request was made to the respondent-Trust to approve the drawing, so that construction could be started. The petitioner-Company received a Show Cause Notice dated 17.1.2003 (Annexure-P-17) and was asked to stop the construction work on the ground that building plan has not been approved. Vide another letter dated November 25, 2003 (Annexure-P-21), the petitioner-Company was asked to deposit ` 87,74,500/- towards non construction fee including the interest. The petitioner-Company was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 11.5.2005 (Annexure-P-22) asking it to show cause why the allotment of the plot could not be cancelled for non construction and non payment of the non construction fee. The petitioner- Company submitted its reply. Vide letter dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure-P-
24), the petitioner-Company was informed that the allotment has been cancelled. The petitioner-Company preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, which was dismissed, vide order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-29). In the meantime, the Administrator, Improvement Trust, Roop Nagar, cancelled the allotment, vide letter dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure-P-26). SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -3-
Now, the petitioner-Company seeks the quashing of the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure-P-26) passed by respondent- Trust cancelling the allotment of plot, order dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure- P-21) passed by respondent-Trust seeking deposit of non construction fee and order in appeal dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-28) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Government, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner-Company was dismissed.
In the reply, it was stated that the petitioner-Company did not pay the non construction fee. The petitioner-Company submitted the building plan only on 23.12.1999. The said building plan was returned back on 17.1.2000 after pointing out some discrepancies and also demanding extension fee of ` 27,25,000/- The petitioner-Company resubmitted the building plan on 24.1.2000. However, the petitioner- Company refused to deposit the extension fee saying that the boundary wall has been constructed on the land and that the land was used for the welfare/recreational purposes of the employees. The building plan was returned on 9.3.2000 and the plot was resumed, vide letter dated 20.4.2000. The petitioner-Company, vide letter dated 8.6.2000, requested for exemption of extension fee citing the disturbed conditions in Punjab and also requested to the Government on 26.6.2000 for waiver of the extension fee. The Government directed the respondent-Trust to proceed as per the existing instructions, which means that the representation of the petitioner-Company stood rejected. The petitioner-Company was informed of the Government decision and advised that resumption of the plot could be reconsidered if the allottee pay the pending extension fee SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -4- amounting to ` 57,88,000/-. The reminders were sent to the petitioner- Company, but no response was received. The petitioner-Company made more representations to the Government and the State Government, vide letter dated 18.12.2001 decided to waive off the non construction charges pending against the petitioner-Company. The Trust informed the petitioner about the waiver of charges on 26.12.2001. The petitioner-Company was accordingly informed, vide letter dated 25.3.2002 (Annexure-P-14) that in the light of the said decision of the Government, the allotment of the plot is restored on the condition with regard to non construction fee in future and that the decision of the Government would be binding on the petitioner-Company. This was accepted by the petitioner-Company, vide letter dated 26.3.2002. Indemnity bond was submitted by the petitioner- Company on 1.10.2002 whereby petitioner-Company undertook to abide by the new policy of the Government regarding extension fee. The respondent-Trust approached the Government through its letter dated 26.12.2002. The Government, vide letter dated 25.2.2003, informed the Trust that the order dated 18.12.2001 waiving the extension fee amounting to ` 57,88,000/- has been stayed. Subsequently, a detailed order dated 1/11.9.2003 was passed by the Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab, vide which the earlier order of the Government dated 18.12.2001, was withdrawn and it was directed that the petitioner-Company is now liable to pay the extension fee. The petitioner-Company was informed on 4.11.2003 and 25.11.2003 in this regard and it was asked to pay the pending extension fee of ` 87,74,000/-. A number of reminders were also sent to the petitioner-Company. Thereafter, after issuing Show Cause SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -5- Notice, the plot was resumed. The appeal filed by the petitioner-Company before the Appellate Authority i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, Chandigarh, was dismissed, vide order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-28).
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, learned counsel for respondent-Trust and have also carefully gone through the file.
The condition of Allotment Letters dated 11.11.1988 and 3.5.1989 (Annexures-P-1 and P-2) shows that 10000 sq. yds. land was allotted to the petitioner-Company for housing complex. As per condition 8 of the allotment letter, the petitioner-Company was required to complete the building on the said allotted plot within three years from the date of issuance of the allotment letter after getting the demarcation and after getting the plan of proposed building approved from the Trust. Admittedly, the building plan (Annexure-P-6) was submitted only on 23.12.1999 i.e. after 10 years of the initial allotment. Thereafter, when the respondent-Trust demanded non construction charges and the extension fee, the same cannot be said to be unjustified.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Company Shri Deepak Sibal has argued that the extension fee was waived off, vide letter dated 18.12.2001 by the State Government. However, he has admitted that the said waiver was later on withdrawn on 11.9.2003, though, he claims that the same was withdrawn without hearing him. Another letter of the petitioner-Company dated 3.1.2002 (Annexure-P-13) shows that the petitioner-Company changed its plan to construct the multi storied flats SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -6- and was planning to develop the plots of various sizes, which were to be allotted to the individuals, which means that till the year 2002, the petitioner-Company had no specific plan of raising construction on the disputed plot. Vide another letter dated 13.8.2002 (Annexure-P-15), the petitioner-Company requested the Improvement Trust to execute the Conveyance Deed to enable it to obtain financial aid from the Financial Institutions/Banks. It also comes out that allotment of the plot was initially cancelled on 20.4.2000, but later on, non construction fee was waived on 18.12.2001 by the State Government. The said waiver was later on withdrawn. Ultimately, when non construction fee/ extension fee was not deposited, a Show Cause Notice dated 11.5.2005 (Annexure-P-22) was issued and the same was replied. A personal hearing was also given to the petitioner-Company. Thereafter, the impugned order of resumption of plot dated 29.12.2005 (Annexure-P-24) was passed. The approval of Government for cancellation of allotment was conveyed, vide letter dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure-P-26). The appeal of the petitioner-Company was dismissed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Local Bodies, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-28).
The documents, discussed above, clearly show that from the date of allotment in the year 1988/1989, the petitioner-Company was required to construct the residential housing complex within three years. However, it did not even bother to construct any residential unit for next 10 years. Even thereafter, the petitioner-Company merely submitted construction plan, but refused to pay the non construction charges and SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -7- extension fee. Thereafter, the petitioner-Company changed its mind and decided to convert plots in place of multi storied flats. During the entire period till show cause notice was issued on 11.5.2005 i.e. for full 16 years, the petitioner-Company did not raise any construction on the allotted plot nor it paid any such construction charges and extension fee despite repeated demands. Even no offer was made at any stage to pay non construction charges. In such circumstances, the resumption of plot on the ground of non payment of extension fee and non construction charges is justified.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner-Company Shri Deepak Sibal has further argued that the order waiving of the extension fee was arbitrarily withdrawn without hearing him. However, this point was raised in the appeal and was dealt in detail by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Local Bodies giving adequate reasoning. The relevant extract from the order reads as under :-
"....... This shows that the decision communicated by Department of Local Govt. to Trust on 18.12.2001 of waiving off the NCF amount was passed by an authority/officer who was legally incompetent to take such decision and as this decision also smacks of malafide, therefore, the matter was also reported to the Police for investigation. It is noticeable that prior to this, the competent authority in the Govt. has already conveyed to Trust on 20.2.2001 that prayer for waiving off the NCF amount of appellant is devoid of any substance and this decision was duly intimated to the appellant on 10.4.2001. The appellant at no stage even in this appeal has challenged the legality or vires of the Govt. decision dated 20.2.2001 conveyed to the appellant on 10.4.2001. Therefore, the same is necessarily held to be legal and valid. All this also shows that the contention of the appellant that the impugned order of withdrawal of the decision of Government SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -8- conveyed to the Trust on 18.12.2001 was taken at his back and the appellant is unaware of it is on the face of it incorrect as the Trust has duly intimated the appellant in this regard on 10.4.2001. It is undisputed that rules of natural justice are required to be followed even while passing the administrative orders unless there is specific prohibition under the relevant Act or rules. The appellant has mainly argued that the order conveyed by the Government on 18.12.2001 to Trust was valid and hence could not be reviewed. The appellant is blowing hot and cold in the same breath on the issue of "power of review" of Govt. If the assertion of the appellant that Govt. has no power to review its own order is admitted to be correct, the order conveyed on 18.12.2001 was per se also illegal because the Govt. had earlier decided the similar prayer of appellant at competent level in the Government on 20.2.2001, therefore, there was no scope for reviewing the order dated 20.2.2001 and in view of this, the order conveyed on 18.12.2001 was also erroneous and illegal. In fact, as demonstrated above, the communication dated 18.12.2001 was issued by an incompetent authority in the Government, therefore, cannot be termed as an "order" (legal and valid) of the Government. In fact, the Govt. has lawfully decided and declined the prayer of the appellant for waiving off the NCF dated 26.6.2000 and then this decision was duly communicated to Trust on 20.2.2001 and as such the later decision dated 1.9.03 circulated on 11.9.2003 was mere reiteration of its earlier communication dated 20.2.2001. ......"
The reasons recorded are self explanatory. The same are valid and logical. We do not find any error in the reasoning recorded.
We also find that when the petitioner-Company failed to raise construction on the allotted plot for full 16 years. It also did not pay the non construction charges and extension fee. Thus, the respondent-Trust was left with no alternative, but to resume the plot.
The matter regarding resumption only on the ground of non- construction was examined by the different Division Benches of this Court SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA 2014.09.08 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13928 of 2007 -9- in cases of M/s Printers Engineering Company Versus State of Haryana, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 54, The Advisor to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others Versus Gursharan Singh and others, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 755 and M/s Orient Resins Limited Versus The State of Haryana and others CWP No. 1534 of 1991, decided on 12.8.2014.
It was held that the resumption on the ground of non construction is justified. The present case is even worst. Here neither the extension for construction was ever sought nor non construction fee claimed by the respondents was ever paid or even offered to be paid.
In the given circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure-P-26) resuming the plot in pursuance of the resolution of the Trust approved by the Government and order in appeal dated 5.5.2009 (Annexure-P-28), passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Bodies.
Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
2.9.2014
sjks/sarita
SANJIV KUMAR SHARMA
2014.09.08 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document