Punjab-Haryana High Court
Welfare Association Of Sector 7 Plot ... vs H.U.D.A. on 8 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR358
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is an R.S.A. and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal; who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.4.1997 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed.
2. Welfare Association of Sector 7 Plot Owners, Karnal, through its President P.D. Guglani filed a suit for declaration that the demand notices dated 10.12.1991 claiming additional price be declared illegal, void, without jurisdiction, unsustaining in the eyes of law and not binding upon the plaintiff. The main grouse of the plaintiff-appellant was that the enhancement is not proportionate to the compensation which has been enhanced by the competent authority and in this view of the matter, the demand notices were not binding. Moreover, before issuing the notices, the allottees of the plots were not associated in the matter of calculation. It was also alleged that the enhanced compensation ought to have been divided under two classification, i.e. residential and commercial.
3. The suit was contested by the HUDA who justified the issuance of the notices. The trial Court framed as many as 16 issues and for our purpose the findings on issue No. 1 are very material, which read as under:-
"It may be mentioned at the outset that there is no dispute between the parties that defendants are competent to demand the enhanced compensation price awarded by the Court as per clause 9 of the allotment letter. In order to show that the impugned notices of additional price are illegal, null, void, learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the grounds taken in Para No. 14 of the plaint on which the impugned notices have been assailed. He also argued that enhanced compensation per acre as per Ex.P-1 is Rs. 1,09,608/- and, therefore, per square yard compensation comes out to be Rs. 22.64. Whereas in the demand notices enhanced compensation is demanded @ 49.20. It shows that enhancement is not proportionately spread, whereas the commercial sites have not been burdened with enhanced compensation, though they were required to share this burden proportionately. In support of his contention, he has relied upon case titled Subhash Chander Arora v. The Housing Board Haryana, Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator and Ors., (1991-2) P.L.R. 698."
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant refuted these arguments and relied upon case titled Harbinder Bajwa v. State of Haryana, (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 621 and Preet Singh v. HUDA, (1996-3)114 P.L.R. 640.
5. After considering the rival contentions, I do not find any illegality in the demand notices whose copies have been exhibited by the plaintiff and the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants fully clinches the matter on the issue. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also failed to show any specific provision where they were required to be associated while calculating enhanced compensation and to provide voluminous account of cost incurred by them to each of the plaintiff member. The only contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff was that the enhanced compensation has not been proportionately spread and the commercial areas has been left unburdened. Whereas as pej Ex.D-1 the burden of enhanced compensation has also been put on commercial centres etc. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has calculated enhanced compensation per gross acre per square yard Rs. 22.64. However, it is point to be noted that the burden of roads, green belt, police post, fire station, community hall, Dharamshala, etc. of the facilities which are to be commonly used by residents, the burden is to be borne by them and that is why quantum of per square yard has increased to Rs.49.20. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the enhanced compensation has not been properly spread. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of defendant and against plaintiff.
Finally, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the first appellate Court and the appeal also met with the same fate. Still not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal.
6. I have heard Mr. V.K. Bali, counsel for the appellant and Mr. O.P. Sharma, counsel for the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the demand notices issued by the HUDA are based on arbitrary calculations and no reasonable nexus has been made out how the amount has been calculated. The counsel also submitted that the HUDA could claim enhanced amount from the allottees but before doing so, the authority has to divide the compensation between commercial as well as residential plots.
8. The submissions of the counsel for the appellant, keeping in view the facts in hand, are not acceptable. The calculation sheet which was produced by HUDA before the trial was rightly considered by the Courts below. The enhanced compensation has been divided in a reasonable manner. The beneficiaries of the plots have also to share the burden with respect of those areas which were earmarked for green belt, police station, etc., which would be ultimate benefit to the allottees of the plots; whether residential or non-residential. Concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed. No merit. Dismissed.