Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society ... vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 9 July, 2013
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13457 of 1989
The Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society (Regd.) and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 13008 of 1991
The Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society (Regd.) and another
.... PETITIONERS
Versus
The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another
..... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF DECISION : 09.07.2013
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3 (in CWP No. 13457 of 1989) and
for the respondents (in CWP No. 13008 of 1991).
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 13457 of 1989 and 13008 of 1991, filed by the Ambala Urban Estate Welfare Society (Regd.) and its President Bal Krishan Kapoor.
In CWP No. 13457 of 1989, the petitioners have challenged the Dass Narotam 2013.07.31 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13457 of 1989 -2- demand notice dated 4.9.1989 (Annexure P-6) issued to by the respondents demanding additional price from one of the members of petitioner No.1 Association under Regulations 2 (b) and 10 of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land & Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as `the HUDA Regulations'), on account of enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court to the land owners.
In CWP No. 13008 of 1991, subsequent demand notice dated 8.4.1991 (Annexure P-7) was challenged, whereby amount at the rate of ` 18.55 per square yard was demanded on account of enhancement of cost of compensation awarded by the Appellate Court.
In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have also challenged the validity of Regulations 2 (b) and 10 of the HUDA Regulations.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not press the issue of validity of the aforesaid Regulations, and agreed that the members of the petitioner No.1 Association are liable to pay the proportionate cost on account of enhancement of compensation by the Court. However, he confines the prayer in these petitions to the extent that the respondents be directed to give detail of the calculation, justifying the aforesaid demand on account of enhancement of compensation made by the court. Learned counsel submits that if the respondents justify the said amount, then the petitioners will pay the same in accordance with rules.
Dass Narotam 2013.07.31 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 13457 of 1989 -3-
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the aforesaid detail will be furnished to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a self-contained representation to the respondents with regard to the said enhancement, and if such representation is made within a period of one month, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the same after hearing the petitioners or their representative, by passing a speaking order, justifying the said enhancement, within a period of three months. After passing of such an order, it will be open to the respondents to recover the amount as per law.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
July 09, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN )
sd/ndj JUDGE
Dass Narotam
2013.07.31 15:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document