C.K.ARORA vs CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

A Notice of Enquiry (NOE) was issued to Haryana Urban Development Authority under Section 10A(1) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act) on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri C.K. Arora, New Delhi that the former had indulged in restrictive trade practice falling within the definition contained under Section 2(O)(ii) of the Act.

THE brief facts of the case as contained in the complaint can be summarized as below : Mr. C.K. Arora, the complainant was declared successful for an allotment of a plot with the respondent at a tentative cost of Rs. 66,550/-. After the allotment of the plot, the respondent increased the price of the plot by as much as 100%. THE original plot was sold to the complainant at the rate of Rs. 302.50 per sq. metre which was subsequently raised by Rs. 245.30 per sq. yd. on 26.11.1991 and 89.06 per sq. yd. on 5.9.1994. THE respondent filed a reply to the NOE in which it has pointed out that the additional demand raised by it was caused solely because of enhancement made by the judicial pronouncement right up to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on appeals filed by the original land owners from whom the land was acquired by the respondent. THE allotment letter issued to the complainant made it abundantly clear and also had specific condition that the price mentioned at the time of allotment was purely tentative and the said price was liable to be enhanced and increased by an amount by which the amount of compensation payable for those lands were enhanced by Courts for payment to the original land owners from whom the lands were acquired. After the pleadings were complete, issues were framed as to whether the respondent indulged in restrictive trade practice and, if so, whether they were not prejudicial to public interest. Both the parties filed the affidavits of their evidence and no oral witnesses were produced.

We gave a hearing to the Advocate for the complainant Mr. S.L. Sethi as well as Mr. Ravindra Bana, Advocate for the respondent. We have also carefully gone through the facts on record as well as the arguments adduced by the parties. We find from the letter of allotment dated 8.6.1987 issued to the complainant by the respondent that there is a stipulation in Clause 9 which states that "the above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of the demand". During the enquiry the respondent produced its letter dated 13.12.1991 and letter dated 24.9.1994 raising additional demand for Rs. 245.30 sq. yd. and Rs. 89.06 sq. yd. respectively in which it was clearly mentioned that the enhanced compensation for the land had been deposited in the Court for payment to the concerned parties due to enhancement of compensation for acquisition of land awarded by the Court. The respondent has also made available to the Commission the basis on which the additional demands were raised by the respondent indicating the proportionate share of the complainant.

FROM the above it is clear that the complainant took possession of the plot with the clear knowledge that the price quoted was tentative which was liable to be revised as and when compensation payable for the land under the Land Acquisition Act was enhanced or re-determined. Thus, the complaint that the respondent indulged in restrictive trade practice is misconceived. During arguments the Advocate for the respondent also brought to our notice the order of the Commission in UTPE 96/94 pronounced on 26th September, 1994 by which a similar complaint against the respondent was dismissed. In the premises, we direct that the NOE issued against the respondent be discharged. There is no order as to costs. NOE discharged.