HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RANJAN DHAMINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 25-3-1996 of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana, High Court in R.S.A. No. 288 of 1996 dismissing the defendants Second Appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge as affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the notice issued by defendant No.1 on 5-4-1990 demanding the additional sum of Rs. 4,66,847/- is illegal, invalid and inoperative and as such defendants are not entitled to claim the said amount. The short facts as pleaded in the plaint are that industrial plot No. 42 in Sector-10 in industrial estate, Gurgaon was provisionally allotted to the plaintiffs in the name of M/s. Exotica International Enterprises under letter dated 7-10-1984 (Ex. P.1) The price fixed for the plot was Rs. 1,54,870/- at the rate of Rs. 154.87 per square metre. A part of the amount was required to be paid immediately and accordingly the plaintiffs deposited the demanded amount of Rs. 48,396.90 under Exhibit P.2 dated 9-10-1985. The possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiffs on 14-11-1985 and the delivery of possession is indicated under Ex. P.3. The plaintiffs thereafter started construction on the plot as per approved plan and ultimately requested the defendants by his letters dated 9-5-1989 and 2-6-1989 to finalise the matter on receipt of the entire remaining price. At that point of time the defendants demanded that unless the plaintiff pays at the rate of Rs. 269.92 per square metre the matter cannot be finalised. By that time plaintiffs had already spent a huge sum in making construction over the land and, therefore, had no other option than to agree to pay the enhanced price. Consequently, the defendants issued the letter of allotment dated 24-11-1989 (Ex. P. 11) fixing the price of the plot at Rs. 3,78,250/- and pursuant to the aforesaid letter the plaintiff paid the balance amount which was acknowledged by the defendant under Receipt No.13126 dated 24-11-1989 (Ex. P.7) and Receipt No. 13149 dated 27-11-1989 (Ex.P.8). When the plaintiff then requested to get the conveyance deed executed the defendant No. 2 issued the impugned letter No. 2108 dated 5-4-1990 (Ex.P.12) intimating the plaintiff that the rate of the plots has been revised further to the extent of Rs. 560.60 per square metre and, therefore, plaintiffs are required to pay a further sum of Rs. 4,66,847/-. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for the relief already stated calling in question the validity of the aforesaid demand of the defendants. The defendants in their written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit and also took the stand that the plaintiffs had not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendants admitted of having issued the letter of allotment (Ex. P.11) dated 24-11-1989 under which the price of the plot of land had been fixed at Rs.3,79,250/- but contended that the said price was tentative and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to a higher sum in accordance with the decision of the authority. On the pleadings of the parties the learned sub-Judge, Gurgaon framed as many as 9 issues and parties laid evidence on the suit. On discussion of the entire evidence on record the learned Judge on Issue Nos.1 and 2 came to the finding that the increase in the rate of plot from Rs. 154.87 to Rs. 269.92 per-square metre was not illegal or void as the revised rate was taken by the defendants due to default of the plaintiff. On Issue No. 3 which is most crucial issue the learned trial Judge came to hold that under condition No. 9 of Ex. P.11 enhancement can be claimed only when the cost of land gets enhanced on account of award of the competent authority under the land Acquisition Act and the absence of any material to indicate that the cost of the land was increased on account of award of the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act the defendants were not entitled to raise the additional amount of Rs. 4,06,847/- under their letter dated 5-4-1990, Ex. P.12 and as such the said demand is illegal, void and ultra vires. On Issue No. 4 the learned Judge came to hold that the area of plot was 1250 square metre. On the question of jurisdiction of the Court under Issue No. 5 it was held that the Civil Courts have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the controversy. Issue Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were not pressed by the counsel appearing for the defendants and as such they are held against the defendants. On these findings the suit was decreed and it was held that the defendants are not entitled to claim the additional amount as per their letter dated 5-4-1990 (Ex. P.12). Against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge the defendants carried the matter in appeal. The additional District Judge, Gurgaon disposed of the Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1994 by the judgment dated 26th of April, 1995 and on reconsideration of the material on record confirmed the findings of the trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal the learned Additional Judge observed that the counsel for the appellant failed to indicate on what account the rates of the land were further enhanced from Rs. 269.92 per square meter to Rs. 560.60 per square metre. The Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that defendants are not entitled to go beyond the condition laid down in Clause (9) of the letter of allotment (Ex. P.11) and since there was no enhancement of the compensation by any Court in the land acquisition proceedings the additional demand letter dated 5- 4-1990 (Ex. P.12) is without any basis and thus liable to be set aside. Against the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, defendants preferred the second appeal which was registered as R.S.A. No. 288 of 1996. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants-appellants himself stated before the High Court that inspite of making efforts the appellants have not been able to satisfy as to how defendants are entitled to claim to enhance price. The learned counsel could not indicate any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below and, therefore, the second appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 25-3-1996. Hence this appeal by special leave.