HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. GOODYEAR INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT filed the instant suit seeking declaration to the effect that the impugned demand notice dated 16.06.2003 issued by the defendant -appellant raising demand of External Development Charges (EDC) @ Rs.200 per square yard is illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Further relief of permanent injunction was sought restraining the defendant -appellant from recovering any such amount on the basis of the aforesaid notice or taking any other action against the plaintiff -respondent.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff -respondent that a piece of land measuring 567 Kanals 15 Marlas situated at 21/4 Milestone, Delhi - Mathura Road, Ballabhgarh was acquired by the Government of Punjab in the year 1960 for establishment of the respondent - Company. A conveyance deed dated 28.03.1962 was executed in this regard by the Government of Punjab in favour of the respondent - Company, which was duly registered on 24.04.1962 before the office of Sub -Registrar of Assurances, Ballabhgarh. Possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiff -Company which started manufacturing activities by raising construction of building and its manufacturing plant in the year 1962. It was averred that no extra facility was provided by the defendant -appellant to the respondent - Company and thereafter, a piece of land was acquired by the Government for infrastructural purposes and after this the plaintiff - respondent was left with land measuring 534 Kanals 13 Marlas. According to the plaintiff -respondent, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 came into force, whereas the Rules were framed thereunder on 25.05.1965. According to the respondent -Company, there was no need to seek permission for change of land use, as the land was acquired for a specific purpose of setting up an industry. Still the plaintiff -respondent entered into an agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning for fulfilling the conditions contained therein in accordance with the Rules framed under the 1963 Act, and thus, an agreement was executed on behalf of the respondent -Company on 01.12.1971 agreeing to pay EDC. Thereafter, permission to change the land use was also granted to the plaintiff -respondent vide letter dated 22.12.1971. It is further case of the plaintiff -respondent that vide letter dated 03.04.1978, the appellant raised a demand of EDC @ Rs.11,700 per acre in pursuance of the agreement dated 01.12.1971.

(3.) UPON notice, the appellant contested the suit raising various preliminary objections stating that despite granting many opportunities of hearing and issuance of show -cause -notices, the plaintiff -Company failed to deposit the EDC due to the appellant. However, acquisition of land for the plaintiff -Company and execution of the conveyance deed in its favour was admitted. Execution of the agreement dated 01.12.1971 was also admitted, however, it was denied that there was no need to seek permission for change of user from the appellant. It was also admitted that initially a demand of Rs.11,700 per acre was raised on account of EDC, however, it was alleged that the plaintiff -respondent deposited lesser amount and the remaining 75 % was deposited only on 24.01.1986, whereas the said amount was to be paid within a period of 30 days with effect from 03.04.1978. As such, it was alleged that the plaintiff -respondent was liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount. It was further alleged that subsequent memos were issued by the defendant -appellant as per its Policy and Rules. It was further alleged that the show cause notice dated 26.04.2002 had been issued to the plaintiff -respondent under the provisions of the HUDA Act legally and thus, the suit was liable to be dismissed.