Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

of the external development works. The external development works have not been completed and, therefore, the demand for payment of EDC, according to the petitioners, is unsustainable.

The alternate submissions are as follows:

The scheme under the Act provides for payment of proportionate development charges with respect to the external development works and, therefore, the practice and procedure adopted by the respondents requiring the colonizer to pay the entire amount of EDC without linking the same to the extent of development being carried out is illegal and unjustified. A colonizer is liable to pay EDC only in proportion to the external development works completed and, in any event, the work in respect thereof actually and physically commencing. In any event, some of the external development works have not even been taken up for implementation and, therefore, there is no question of any external development charges being payable in relation at least to such works.

petitioners was that the external development works were to be commensurate with the recovery of EDC from the colonizers. Rejecting the contention, the Division Bench held:-

"19. A conjoint reading of the statutory provisions reproduced above together with the format of LC-IV agreement required to be executed by the person who wants to set up a colony shows that the coloniser is required to pay the cost of external development works if the same are required to be carried out by the government or local authority. The Director has the power to determine the proportion and the time within the payment of EDC is to be made. The expression 'external development works' as defined in Section 2(g) includes sewerage, drainage, roads and electrical works which may have to be executed in the periphery of or outside the colony for the joint benefit of two or more colonies. This, however, does not mean that such works are confined to one or more colonisers. In its very concept, the external development is meant for the community at large and is not confined to a person who may develop a colony for the benefit of a group of individuals, i.e., plot holders. All those including the coloniser who are benefited by external development works are required to pay for it. Of course, the government has the discretion to grant exemption to economically weaker sections and similar other groups. The use of the words 'in the periphery' or 'or outside' in the definition of the expression 'external development works' is a clear indication of the intention of the Legislature not to confine the external development works to the particular colony. If the Legislature wanted to confine the external development works to the particular colony or colonies, then the definition of the said expression would have been differently worded. The reason why the external development works are not confined to the particular colony or colonies is not far to seek. The works, like laying of roads, sewerage, drainage and electrical lines involve huge expenditure. If these works are to be confined to few individuals who may purchase the land for setting up a colony, then such persons and ultimately the plot/flat owners would be burdened with exorbitant cost and the very object of urbanisation of the area of involving private entrepreneurs, i.e., colonisers would be frustrated. So far as the coloniser is concerned, he can realise this amount from the plot holders in advance. Even if he/it pays for the external development works from his/its own resources, then the cost of external development works can be realised from those who are allotted plots after completion of the colony. However, there is nothing in the scheme of the 1975 Act, the Rules and the format of LC-IV agreement from which it can be inferred that the coloniser can avoid the payment of EDC on due dates on the pretext of CWP-9558-2015, etc. - 45 -
non-sanction of building plan or non-renewal of licence or the failure of the competent authority to provide particular facility which forms part of the external development work.
20. In the light of the above analysis of the relevant provisions, we shall now consider whether the petitioners are justified in not paying the balance instalments of EDC and other charges on the pretext of alleged non-execution of external development works by respondent No. 2 or non-renewal of licenses and non- release of building plan. A careful reading of various sub-clauses of the two agreements executed by them shows that the petitioners had undertaken to pay EDC at the rate of 30.25 lacs per gross acre of the HUDA through respondent No. 1. They had the option of paying the entire amount in lump sum within 30 days from the date of grant of licence or in eight equal six monthly instalments of 12.5% and also pay interest at the rate of 18% on unpaid portion of the amount. In terms of clause (e)(iii), they were required to pay penal interest at the rate of 3% for delayed payment of instalments. They had also undertaken to take electric connection from the Haryana State Electricity Board. These payments were not subject to the completion of particular external development work which the HUDA was required to undertake as per the terms of agreement. The provision for payment of EDC in eight equal six monthly instalments is indicative of the fact that external development works were to be completed within a period of 4 years. The payment of instalments of EDC were not subject to the completion of particular item of external development work at a particular point of time. However, the fact of the matter is that after paying first two instalments in respect of licence No. 2, the petitioners have regularly delayed the payment of EDC and entered into a maze of correspondence blaming the respondents for delaying the project. Of course, in various communications, they admitted delay on their part in depositing the instalments of EDC etc. and projected the financial stringencies as the reasons for non-payment of instalments of EDC etc. and also undertook to pay the amount with interest." (emphasis supplied) The observations in paragraph-20 that the provision for payment of EDC in eight equal six monthly instalments is indicative of the fact that the external development works were to be completed within a period of four years, does not support the petitioners' contention that the EDC was payable only upon the completion of the external development works.

energy charges, according to him, do not constitute external development work as defined in Section 2(g). Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.H. Wadia vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214, paras 14, 16 and 19, he submitted that the State ought not to be allowed to be a profiteer.

92. As Mr. Gulati pointed out, maintenance and energy charges are not defined in the Act. It is necessary, therefore, to interpret the provisions of the Act to determine whether they may be included. The external development works are carried out from time to time. They cannot be ignored and neglected once they are carried out. They must be maintained, preserved and protected. The cost of maintenance and energy charges are an integral part of the cost incurred in respect of the external development works. If the external development works are not maintained, they would deteriorate rapidly. More important, the preservation and maintenance of the external development works must be ensured even during the course of the execution thereof. In other words, they must be protected, preserved and maintained throughout at least till the completion thereof. Such works are an inherent part of the external development works themselves. Thus, even assuming that once the external development works are completed, maintenance and energy charges in respect thereof cannot form a part of EDC, such costs undoubtedly form a part of the EDC at least in so far as they relate up to the stage of the completion of a particular external development work.