PURAN ANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present judgment, we propose to dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 762, 794,795, 1218, 1319 and 1609 of 1991 as somewhat similar questions of law and fact are involved therein. The facts are being taken from LPA No. 794 of 1991.

(2.) THE appellants, in response to various advertisements issued by respondent No. 2-The Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'huda'), applied for the allotment of different categories of plots at different stations in Haryana. In response to the applications made, respondent No. 2 required the appellants to deposit 10 per cent of the tentative price of the plots which was determined at the rate of Rs. 115/- per sq. mtr. as earnest money. This amount was duly deposited by the appellants and the other formalities enjoined on them were also duly complied with. Respondent No. 2 vide communication dated 5th April, 1990, Annexure P-8 to the petition, informed Pran Anand, appellant No. 1, that it had been decided to offer him an Industrial Plot measuring 2 kanals in the Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Panchkula, subject to certain additional formalities and on their completion, Annexure P 9 dated 29th May, 1990, offering him a plot was issued at a tentative price of Rs. 483. 87 per sq. mtrs. Aggrieved by the cost of the plot as intimated by the letter Annexure P-9, the appellants filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8652 of 1990 in this Court and on the same having been dismissed, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. The stand taken before the learned single Judge and duly repelled by him was that respondent No. 2 HUDA was not competent to charge any amount beyond Rs. 115/- per sq. mtr. as fixed by Annexure P-2 towards the price of the plot. The argument that the burden of enhanced price of the commercial site/plots had unjustifiably been passed on to the appellants and others similarly situated was found to be factually incorrect. The learned Judge also found that the appellants had accepted the offer of allotment in terms of Annexure P-9 and, as such, the question of not complying with the provisions could not now be raised.

(3.) IT has been urged by Mr. A. L. Bahl, learned counsel appearing in Letters patent Appeal Nos. 762, 794 and 795 of 1991 that he did not seriously dispute the powers of respondent No. 2 to increase the tentative price, but has asserted that the price once having been fixed vide letter Annexure P-2 at the rate of Rs. 115/- per square metre there was no justifiable reason or material to enhance it to Rs. 483 87 per sq. mtrs. In support of his case, he has cited Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1628 and P. N. Verma v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1985 Delhi 417. He has also asserted that the appellants have been discriminated against inasmuch as that vide Annexure P-10 to the petition, land had been allotted in the same area to M/s Sidhartha Polyster (Pvt.) Limited, Amritsar, at Rs. 127 per sq. mtr. and no additional amount had now been claimed from them.