LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-95

DEV RAJ KATYAL Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On July 07, 2004
Dev Raj Katyal Appellant
V/S
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was allotted a residential plot No. 392, Sector 22 in the Urban Estate, Gurgaon on 11.9.1984. Tentative price of the plot as mentioned in the original allotment letter was Rs. 49,950/-. The petitioner paid 25% of the tentative price Rs. 12,487.50 at the time of allotment. The balance amount was to be recovered in six half yearly instalments. The petitioner regularly paid the instalments. The final instalment of Rs. 6,250/- was paid in the year 1990. According to Clause 7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the site was to be delivered to the petitioner within 90 days from the date of the allotment letter, on completion of development works in the area. It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of the filing of the petition, on 10.2.1994, the possession had not been handed over to the petitioner. On 14.7.1987, the petitioner was served with a demand notice calling upon him to pay additional price of the plot amounting to Rs. 20,875/-. The enhanced, price was claimed under Clause 9 of the allotment letter. This clause provides for increase in the price in case the compensation awarded for acquisition of land is enhanced by Court. In that case, the price shall be proportionately increased. It was also stipulated that the additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of the demand, failing which interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be charged from the date of issue of the notice. On receipt of the demand, the petitioner made a representation claiming that the respondents were not entitled to charge any further amount. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 22.2.1993. On rejection of the representation, the petitioner paid the enhanced price to the respondents by demand drafts on 8.4.1993 and 10.4.1993. Thereafter, two bank drafts dated 20.10.1993 representing the balance amount were also deposited. In the meantime, the petitioner received another show- cause notice on 23.9.1993 asking him to deposit a sum of Rs. 32,500/- which included interest upto date. The petitioner was also asked to show-cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 3,250/- be not imposed. At this stage, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

(2.) ON 17.2.1994, notice of motion was issued and operation of the order demanding Rs. 32,500/- dated 23.9.1993 was stayed. The respondents filed the written statement. They have pleaded that the offer of possession was made to the petitioner on 16.4.1992. However, till the filing of the petition, the petitioner had not come forward to take the possession of the plot. The petitioner has filed a replication and stated that although admittedly the possession was offered to the petitioner on 25.4.1992, the respondents are charging interest from the date of demand notice i.e. 14.7.1987. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had filed civil Miscellaneous Application No. 9951 of 1994 which was decided on 17.1.1995. This Court declined to stay the recovery of amount as claimed by the respondents. The petitioner was however permitted to deposit the amount by instalments. By now, it is not disputed that the entire amount has been paid. It is also not disputed that the possession has been handed over to the petitioner. The only short question which remains for adjudication is as to whether interest could be charged from the petitioner w.e.f. 14.7.1987 or should have been charged from the date of the offer of possession on 25.4.1992.

(3.) MR . Katyal has argued that interest could only be charged from the date of the offer of possession. This would only have been applicable if the petitioner had accepted the possession of the pot and paid the amounts which were claimed. Since the petitioner did not make the payments in accordance with the stipulated time period, the respondents would be entitled to claim interest from the date of notice. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition. Dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.