SHAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two writ petitions (Nos. 7495 and 9119 of 1988) have been filed by Sham Sunder petitioner against the State of Haryana and the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. In C.W.P. No. 7495 of 1988 the challenge is to the order dated May 6, 1988 (Annexure P. 14) passed by the Director, respondent No. 2, with certain consequential reliefs. Subsequently the other writ petition was filed for quashing order dated August 16, 1988 (Annexure P. 16) passed by the Director, respondent No. 2 with consequential other reliefs. Since the facts are mostly common, they are briefly stated below.

(2.) In December 1983, the petitioner purchased a big chunk of land situated in village Bhainsa Tibba, Tehsil Kalka, Distt. Ambala. This piece of land alongwith other land was subject matter of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Since the land in dispute was denotified and the petitioner, having purchased the same he applied for the grant of a licence, to the Director, respondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act to develop a colony known as Swastik Vihar, a Group Housing Complex. The licence granted was valid for two years. Under the terms of the licence as well as agreement entered between the parties the internal development work was to be done by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Although the petition had started construction of Group Housing Complex in accordance with the plans sanctioned, an order was passed on May 6, 1988 by the Director which is Annexure P. 14 of the first writ petition. It was mentioned therein that since validity of the licence had expired on October 28, 1986 and the building - plans approved were no more valid the petitioner was, therefore, directed not to proceed with the construction of the buildings on the site and also to stop issuing advertisements for inviting applications for allotment of flat/shops. The petitioner was further directed not to make any sole allotment of flat/shops in any manner whatsoever, in the aforesaid colony. For non-compliance of these directions suitable action under the Act aforesaid and Rules framed thereunder was to be taken against the petitioners. While contesting this writ petition the respondent filed a detailed reply maintaining that order dated May 6, 1988 was neither illegal nor arbitrary and was stated to be valid. It was alleged that the petition had not complied with the terms and conditions of the licence and the agreement. The petitioner was required to pay external development charges which he had failed to do. The external development charges were revised as per terms of the agreement which were to the tune of Rs. 205.75 lacs. The demand notice was issued. However, the petitioner did not accept the same.

(3.) In Writ Petition No. 9119 of 1988 the challenge is to the order dated August 16, 1988 (Annexure P. 16) passed by the Director respondent No. 2, claiming Rs. 205.70 lacs as external development charges. The respondents contested this writ petition by filing reply, inter alia, alleging that alternative remedy of appeal under section 19 of the Act was available and the writ petition was not maintainable. Although earlier external development charges were claimed amounting to Rs. 26.11 lacs, however, the same were revisable. The petitioner was joined in this process and a high level committee was appointed and the external development charges were fixed as claimed in the impugned order. At the time of arguments further details of the enhancement of the external development charges were furnished.