HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHASHI BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Shashi Bansal and others instituted suit for permanent injunction against Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred as HUDA) through its Chief Administrator directing the latter to provide street light and develop parks in the Colony in which plots No. 3734, 1966, 2200 and 3118 are situated and further to refund the amount of interest and non-construction fee, which they have charged from them and for perpetual injunction restraining them from demanding interest and non-construction fee against the said plots.

(2.) IT was alleged in the plaint that plot No. 3734 was allotted to Smt. Shashi Bansal vide re-allotment letter No. 1203 dated 13.3.1992 on the same terms and conditions as contained in allotment No. 136 dated 7.1.1983. Plot No. 1966 was allotted to Smt. Santro vide reallotment letter No. 3220 dated 15.9.89 on the same terms and conditions as incorporated in the allotment letter No. 1591 dated 23.4.81. Ranbir Singh Porus was allotted plot No. 2200 vide allotment letter No. 934 dated 9.4.81. Bimla Arora was allotted plot No. 3118 vide allotment letter No. 1161 dated 15.3.85. Allottees were required to pay 1/4th amount of the price within 30 days of the issue of allotment letter. Remaining amount was to be paid in six yearly instalments. It was agreed by the HUDA that the allottees will be allowed to pay instalments without interest upto the time of carrying out of development works in the area where these plots were situated. It was also agreed that HUDA will offer possession of the plots to the allottees (plaintiffs) after the development works were completed in the Sector/Sectors where these plots were located. Thereafter, the allottees (plaintiffs) were to be liable to pay interest on the balance amount of the allotment money at the rate of 10% of per annum. It was alleged in the plaint that HUDA had charged interest and non-construction fee from the allottees without completing the development works in the area. This act on the part of HUDA was illegal. It was further alleged in the plaint that in the development works to be carried out by HUDA was included the laying of roads, sewerage, the making of provision of water supply, street light and parks. In the price mentioned in the allotment letter was included the cost of the land and the cost of the development work to be carried out of in the Colony and other administrative expenses. No amount could be charged separately for carrying out development works. No development works were carried out by HUDA in the Colony, in which these plots are situated. HUDA charged interest from the allottees (plaintiffs) illegally. HUDA charged non-construction fee illegally. Non-construction fee was chargeable if after possession was delivered, no construction was raised within 2 years of delivery of possession to the allottees. Interest and non-construction fee were charged by HUDA from them under threat of resumption of these plots.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-