Northern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—Responding to applications of Northern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred to as ''the petitioner'') and PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (hereinafter referred to as ''PHD Chamber'') for allotment of suitable sites for their respective offices/complexes, Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) vide memorandum dated 31.03.1989 conveyed to them decision of the respondents to allot to them a plot admeasuring 1.5 acres in Sector 31A, Chandigarh @ Rs. 60/- per square yards, on lease hold basis for 99 years, and issued a letter of intent dated 26.04.1989 requesting the petitioner and PHD Chamber to deposit 25% of the total premium, and submit an undertaking accepting the allotment in their joint names and other terms and conditions of the allotment, as decided by the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner and PHD Chamber deposited the requisite 25% of the amount of premium, as also their undertakings accepting the offer of joint allotment of the plot admeasuring 1.5 acres. They also did not raise any objection to such joint allotment of the plot to them. Accordingly, vide letter of allotment dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1), a plot admeasuring 7406.05 sq. yds., or say 1.5 acres, was allotted jointly to the petitioner and PHD Chamber on lease hold basis for 99 years for a total premium of Rs. 4,44,363/-. They were also required to pay an amount of Rs. 11,109/- per annum as ground rent for the first 33 years. According to Clause (4) of the letter of allotment, the amount of Rs. 1,63,350/- paid by the petitioner and PHD Chamber jointly was adjusted towards 25% of the total premium of land. According to Clause (5) of the letter of allotment, lease of the site was deemed to have commenced from the date of issue of the letter of allotment and if the remaining 75% of the amount of premium was paid in one lump sum within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter of allotment, it would carry no interest but if paid thereafter in instalments, it would carry interest @ 7% per annum. The payment of instalments was to be made on 10.10.1991, 10.10.1992 and 10.10.1993, each instalment being of Rs. 1,07,080/-. They were also required to pay the ground rent as aforesaid. Another important stipulation in the letter of allotment was that ground rent would also start accruing from the date of allotment.

Possession of the plot was handed over jointly to the petitioner and PHD Chamber vide memorandum dated 09.11.1990 (Annexure P-2) and, thereafter, they continued in possession thereof till the year 1995.

As the petitioner and PHD Chamber could not raise construction within the stipulated time they also paid extension fee and requested for grant of further time for raising/completing the construction over the site jointly allotted to them.

However, on joint request of the petitioner and PHD Chamber, the 2nd respondent, vide letter of allotment dated 25.05.1995 (Annexure P-5), allotted to PHD Chamber an area admeasuring 4719.99 sq. yds. in Sector 31-A, Chandigarh, for a total premium of Rs. 2,83,200/- and vide letter of allotment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7), allotted a plot admeasuring 2465.405 sq. yds. for a total premium of Rs. 1,47,924/- to the petitioner. Possession of the plot so allotted was given to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 22.12.1995 (Annexure P-8). Building plan submitted by the petitioner was also approved. Ultimately, in continuation and partial modification of letter of allotment dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1) and dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7), respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-10) withdrawing letter dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7) and clarifying that the allotment/lease would commence from 13.09.1990, the date of issue of original letter of allotment and not from 15.11.1995 and other terms and conditions would remain the same as conveyed vide letter dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1) and instalments would be payable as per the schedule given below:-

Petitioner made various representations to the respondents but ultimately, vide memorandum dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-17), the 2nd respondent conveyed to the petitioner that it had been decided by the Chandigarh Administration to charge extension fee from the petitioner taking original date of allotment as 13.09.1990 leaving the period from 19.05.1994 to 20.05.1995 and the petitioner was asked to pay an amount of Rs. 3,30,982/- instead of Rs. 4,43,196/-.

To seek quashing of memorandum dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-17) and letter dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-10), the petitioner has brought the instant civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that the plot admeasuring 1.5 acres in Sector 31-A, Chandigarh, was allotted to the petitioner and PHD Chamber jointly as they accepted the letter of intent dated 26.04.1989 and had filed separate undertakings, duly attested by Magistrate Ist Class, accepting the terms and conditions of the aforesaid offer and request for allotment of separate plots was made after five years of acceptance of the terms and conditions of the allotment and deposit of 25% of the amount of premium. It has also been stated in the counter that separate plots have been allotted to the petitioner and PHD Chamber by way of alternative allotments otherwise the petitioner would have been liable to pay premium as per rates prevalent in the year 1995 or say on 15.11.1995, the date on which the letter of allotment (Annexure P-7) of alternative plot was issued in its favour.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

It is forcefully argued by learned Senior Counsel, Shri O.P. Goyal that after issuance of letter of allotment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7), the respondents could not change its terms and conditions vide memorandum dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-10) and could not demand the extension fee amounting to Rs. 3,30,982/- vide memorandum dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-17). According to him, the lease of the plot so allotted to the petitioner has also to commence from 15.11.1995 and the petitioner is entitled to three years period for raising/completing construction calculated from 15.11.1995 and even ground rent cannot be charged from a date prior to 15.11.1995 as the petitioner had made an application for allotment of plot separately from PHD Chamber and the petitioner never applied for a joint plot.

The contention put up on behalf of the petitioner is controverted by the learned counsel representing the respondents by reiterating the plea as put forth in the counter.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appraisal of the record of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner''s plea lacks substance.

Indisputably, letter of allotment dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1) allotting a plot admeasuring 1.5 acres to the petitioner and PHD Chamber was issued in view of consent of both of them signified by them by jointly depositing an amount equivalent to 25% of the premium and by submitting separate undertakings accepting the terms and conditions of the letter of intent dated 26.04.1989 offering allotment of a joint plot to them. Not only this, the petitioner and PHD Chamber accepted possession of the joint plot vide memorandum dated 09.11.1990 (Annexure P-2) and even deposited extension fee on their failure to raise construction within the stipulated period. The petitioner and PHD Chamber undeniably remained in possession of the joint plot till the year 1995 and it was on their request that the respondents agreed to allot them alternative plots. This cannot be deemed to have clothed the petitioner with a right to run away from the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1). To put the things straight, letter of allotment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7) was not a letter of original allotment of a plot in favour of the petitioner, rather, it was in continuation of the original letter of allotment dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1). In fact, the respondents were not empowered to change the terms and conditions of the original allotment and a schedule of payment was wrongly given in the letter of allotment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7). Realization of this mistake by the 2nd respondent led to issuance of memorandum dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P10) to rectify the mistake and to say that the terms and conditions of allotment would remain the same as given in the original letter of allotment dated 13.09.1990 (Annexure P-1). We do not find any illegality in the memorandum dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-10) because, in our considered opinion, the lease, as also payment of lease money and instalments, have to commence from 13.09.1990 and same is true of the time stipulated for raising/completion of construction on the site.

As regards the memorandum dated 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-17), we find that the 2nd respondent has exempted the period from 19.05.1994 to 20.05.1995 from payment of extension fee and has reduced the amount of such extension fee from Rs. 4,43,196/- to Rs. 3,03,982/-. The approach of the Estate Officer seems to be quite reasonable and rational.

We think it appropriate to refer to an instance given by the respondents in the counter. The respondents have stated that from Punjab Olympic Association and Punjab Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. they have charged price of the land @ Rs. 13,027/- and Rs. 23.469/- per sq. yd., in the year 1991 and 1996, respectively, and the petitioner has been allotted the alternative piece of land in Sector 37, Chandigarh on the old rate, i.e., Rs. 60 per Square Yard as prevalent in the year 1990. If the letter of allotment dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure P-7) is taken to be a fresh allotment, the petitioner would be liable to pay premium at the rate prevalent in the year 1995, which the petitioner is not willing to pay. That way, the petitioner wants to eat its cake and carry it home too, which is not permissible. In the consequence, we find no reason to interfere with the orders dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P-10) and 07.01.2000 (Annexure P-17). The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.