Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Rajinder Kaur and ors.

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is defendants'' second appeal against whom suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

The petitioners filed a suit alleging that they are allottees of plots in Sector 16A, Faridabad. Under clause 9 of the letter of allotment it was stipulated that in case of enhancement of compensation by the Court, the allottee would be required to pay the additional price to be determined by the department. In pursuance of the said condition, the defendants issued demand notice to the plaintiffs calling upon them to pay the amounts mentioned therein towards enhanced price. They challenged the said demand notice in the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the notices were vague inasmuch as full particulars as to how the claim arose and how the amount was calculated were not furnished. The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of section 50 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It was pleaded that the demand for the enhanced price was as a result of the enhancement of compensation by the District Court and the High Court. The trial Court found that the demand of enhanced price made by the impugned demand notice was not illegal as alleged in the plaint. Consequently, the plaintiffs'' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the leaned District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the demand of additional price by the Department was decreed to the effect that the demand of additional price by the defendants was bad and illegal for want of a notice to the plaintiffs and being arbitrary exercise of powers. In view of that finding the plaintiffs'' suit was bad and illegal and restrained them by a decree of injunction from enforcing the said demand in any manner whatsoever. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh) has filed second appeal in this Court.

At the time of motion hearing reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 5794 of 1985 decided on 8th July, alongwith another writ peition. The judgment was delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 1270 of 1985.

Learned counsel for the defendantappellants submitted that in view of the said Division Bench judgment the defendant will realize the enhanced amount in accordance therewith and, therefore, the decree be amended accordingly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondents submitted that they are entitled to the notice before any enhanced amount of compensation is determined and realised from them.

It is no more disputed that the defendants are entitled to recover the additional price on account of enhancement of compensation of the land allotted or buildings, as the case may be. It is also not disputed that the amount sought to be recovered by way of demand notice in the present suit is not in accordance with the Division Bench judgment referred to above. In the circumstances, the defendants will not be entitled to recover the amount as per the demand notice challenged in the present suit. However, it will be open to the defendants to issue fresh demand notices for realising the additional price in accordance with law. With these observations, the decree of the lower appellate Court is modified and the appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.