GIAN INDER SHARMA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to charge simple interest from him at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question on account of enhanced compensation paid by the Haryana Urban Development Authority.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that a residential plot, bearing No. 1615, Sector 7, Karnal, was allotted to the petitioner on freehold basis on 22-5-1987. The total cost of the said plot was Rs.90,597/-. Initially, the petitioner deposited 25% amount of the cost of the plot, i.e. Rs.22,649.25 vide bank draft on 15-5-1987. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 22-5-1987 was issued. As per para 6 of the allotment letter, the balance amount i.e. Rs.67,947.75 was to be paid in lump sum within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual instalments. The first instalment was to fall due after one year of the issuance of the said letter. Each instalment was to be recoverable with interest on balance price at the rate of 10%. The petitioner deposited all the instalments in time with the aforesaid interest. Nothing was due towards him against the price of the plot. Subsequently, the respondents raised two demands for additional price of the plot on account of payment of enhanced compensation to the land owners. The first demand of Rs.31,448.65 was made on 19-4-1990 at the rate Rs.87.63 per square yard and the second demand of Rs.17,650/- was made on 10-12-1991 at the rate of Rs.49.20 per square yard. The aforesaid additional amount was recoverable from the petitioner in the same manner as instalments of the plot were to be recovered. The grouse of the petitioner is that the respondent-HUDA is demanding the aforesaid additional price of the plot with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum, whereas the respondents are not entitled to charge the compound interest from him and he was always ready to pay simple interest on the said amount. On 17-6-2001, the respondents issued a statement of account to the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure P/5-A, according to which the petitioner was to pay Rs.2,13,306/- i.e. Rs.1,76,350/- on account of additional price with interest up to 6-6-2001 and Rs.36,956/- on account of extension fee up to 31-10-2000. The petitioner, under the threat of resumption, deposited Rs. one lac on 14-8-2001 and another Rs. one lac on 28-8-2001 under protest towards the outstanding dues. After making the payment, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 29-8-2001 (Annexure P-7) requesting that the respondents are only entitled to charge simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum and no compound interest can be charged from him in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when he had already paid the entire sale consideration in time and the outstanding amount is only on account of additional price of the plot, being enhanced compensation paid by the respondents to the land owners. In this letter, he gave calculation that regarding first instalment, he is liable to pay only Rs.85,065/- (Rs. 31,441.65/- as principal amount plus Rs.53,623/- as simple interest @15% per annum). Regarding second instalment, he stated that he paid Rs.10,000/- on 6-3-1992 and against this instalment, he was liable to pay only Rs.19,971/-. By giving detailed calculations, he submitted that he had already made the payment in excess under protest, therefore, he requested that only simple interest should be charged from him and the remaining amount, which was paid by him in excess, be refunded to him. When the respondents did not consider his request, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents cannot charge the compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. They can only charge simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum in view of the judgment of this Court given in Civil Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1999, titled as M/s Bhatia Brothers v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority, decided on 14/02/2000 by a Division Bench of this Court, in which it was held that the respondents cannot charge compound interest from the allottees, as there is no provision in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1978 Regulations) and the conditions of allotment stipulated in the allotment letter, that the respondents can charge the compound interest. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 11-9-2000. In view of the aforesaid decision, the petitioner contended that the respondents should be directed to calculate simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot and by adjusting the said amount, the excess amount paid by him may be ordered to be refunded to him.