Ravinder Narula vs HUDA, Chandigarh

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8295 of 1987, 9434, 10.163, 10173, 10195, 11025, 11057 and 11570 of 1988, 746, 1808, 2645, 3983, 4344, 5243, 6229, 6292, 6840, 7620, 8670, 7620, 8670, 8989, 12624, 12783, 13594, 13955 and 16273 of 1989 and 2446, 3190, 3206, 3435, 3725, 3969, 5136, 7302, 5846, 3652, 8662, 8678, 10604, 10614, 111431 11481, 12030, 12203, 3976, 8727 and 10447 of 1990, involving identical questions of law and facts. For the purpose of the order facts have been picked up from CWP No. 8295 of 1987. "Ravinder Narula v. HUDA and another."

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners in pursuance of different advertisements issued by respondent No. 1 for allotment of different categories of plots at different stations in Haryana, applied for the allotment of plots. The possession of the plots so earmarked to each of the petitioners was to be given after the development of the Sectors. In the letter of allotment vide clause 9 thereof, it was made known to the prospective buyers that the 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 by the plot holders as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand. Petitioner Ravinder Narual was allotted 10 marla plot at the tentative price of Rs. 29,950/. The petitioners accepted the terms and conditions of allotment. In the meantime, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short ''the HUDA'') issued demand notice claiming enhanced price from the petitioners in terms of clause 9 of the letter of allotment and to pay the same within 30 days of the issue of the demand notice failing which 15 % interest per annum wouldbe chargeable thereon.

The main controversy raised herein is whether the HUDA is competent to demand enhanced compensation awarded by the Courts.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, though in the first instance denied the competence of HUDA to claim enhanced price from the petitioners, yet later admitted that HUDA is certainly competent to claim enhanced price. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument to the extent that burden of enhanced price of the commercial site/plots has also been passed on to the allottees, which couldnot be done.

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that HUDA shouldnot charge 100% enhancement made by the Court only from the Petitioners who are residential plot holders but it shouldexclude the enhanced price of commercial area, area undetermined use and area soldby auction.

The learned counsel for the HUDA has, on the other hand, vehemently contended that in view of the additional affidavit of Shri I.M. Khunger, Deputy Secretary, HUDA in C.W.P. No. 1270 of 1986, Charanjit and others v. State of Haryana and other, decided on 8.7.1986, it is admitted that the burden of enhanced price for the commercial site is borne by the HUDA and is not passed on to the allottees. Under the circumstances, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the burden of enhanced price in respect of commercial plots has been passed on to the allottee is not sustainable.

The second plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also devoid of merit because of the reason that there was no provision to exclude the enhanced price of commercial sites or to adjust such compensation awarded by the Courts. It is also doubtful whether there existed commercial plots in each of the towns where the residential plots were allotted. The petitioners have not been able to furnish any specific proof in this respect.

The Constitution Bench in Har Shankar v. The Dy. Excise and Excise Commissioner, (1953)3 S.C.R. 254, has observed that those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract alongwith its benefits. Reciprocal rights and obligations arising out of contract do not depend for their enforceability upon whether a contracting party finds it prudent to abide by the terms of the contract. By such a test no contract couldever have a binding force. The jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligations voluntarily incurred. It wouldthus appear that the writ petitions shouldnot have been entertained.

A Division Bench of this Court in M.S. Dutta v. State of Haryana, 1989(1) RRR 369 (P&H) : 1989(1) P.L.R. 524, held that there is no requirement in law that the allottee has to be associated in determining the additional price recoverable from it. Of course, if the allottee disputes the calculation made by the Estate Officer, he or she can move the authorities for inspecting of the record to ascertain how the additional price was worked out and if any discrepancy is found, it couldbe brought to the notice of the Estate Officer who will rectify all genuine mistakes but the allottee cannot insist that before assessing the enhanced price an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded because this requirement neither flows from the statute nor on the ground of equity because the matter is purely of calculation of the additional price.

In this case, the petitioners had accepted the terms of the allotment letter. The allottee is not only liable to pay the additional enhanced price of the land but also the costs of acquisition which includes solatium, in|erest and legal expenditure incurred by the Estate Officer in defending acquisition and the award of the Land Acquisition Collector at all stages mentioned in the LandAcquisition Act.

In Sh. Chander Mani v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra and another, 1991(1) RRR 292 (P&H) : 1990 (2) P.L.R. 6, it was held that the petitioners are liable to pay enhanced price demanded from them in view of the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Similar view was taken in Charanjit Bajaj and others v. The State of Haryana, 1986 RRR 15 (P&H) : 1986 P.L.J. 611.

In C.W.P. No. 8670 of 1989 (Lalit Kumar v. HUDA), Mr. Suresh Monga, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the price enhanced is excessive as it also includes the development charges

Mr. V.K. Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent has categorically stated that the development charges did not constitute component of the enhanced price charged from the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the enhanced price was proportionately divided keeping in view the area of the Sector as a unit as per price of the land and the enhanced price claimed from the petitioners has been calculated accordingly.

For the foregoing reasons and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are liable to pay the enhanced price demanded from them by HUDA as there is no irregularity in the demand raised by the HUDA.

In the result, all the writ petitions stand dismissed without any order as to costs.

Petitions dismissed.