CHOPRA TOWERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA, TOWN AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in the writ petition is the entitlement of the Haryana Urban Development Authority to claim interest for alleged delay in payment of the price of industrial plot allotted to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner had been allotted with a commercial plot on free-hold basis bearing SCF No. 64-65 at Sector 12, Faridabad for a price of Rs. 34,81,500/- by the proceedings of the Estate Officer on 05.09.1998. The petitioner admittedly had paid 25% of the price immediately as per the terms of allotment and the balance of Rs. 26,11,125/- had not been paid within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment or in eight half yearly installments, which option was also available to an allottee. The petitioner's justification for non-payment of the amount within the time was that the petitioner had not been issued with an offer of possession and the liability for payment arose only for delayed payment after the offer of possession. According to the petitioner, possession was not offered and no development works had been done and order of resumption was purported to have been made on 11.07.1995 but it did not come into effect since the respondent themselves were aware that the necessary infrastructural developments had not taken place and they had not offered the property to the petitioner. The demand was made on 08.03.2002 for payment of Rs. 2.39 crores and odd for delay in payment with interest. This was challenged in successive tiers till the dispute was finally adjudicated by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, the 2nd respondent, finding that there had been no development work at all nor was possession of the site offered to the allottee. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 26.12 lacs, which was balance of price and taking further note of the fact that the petitioner had made an offer to make an update payment along with interest, he had directed a payment of interest @12% p.a. from the date of initial allotment. The 2nd respondent observed by his order dated 12.11.2007 that the offer of the petitioner to make an update payment was a fair one and the resumption order passed on 11.07.1995 was liable to be withdrawn. The petitioner had been granted a 60 days time to make the payment.

(3.) The petitioner appears to have filed an application for review of this order dated 12.11.2007 stating that possession of the site had been offered only on 18.01.2008 and the possession had been handed over to him only on 29.05.2008. He had also paid the entire amount as directed by the Authority-the 2nd respondent. The petitioner sought for review not on the ground that he did not make any such offer of payment but contended that in the original order of allotment, the liability to pay interest itself arose only from the date of offer of possession and since the possession had been offered only on 18.01.2008, the liability to interest did not arise.