BHUPINDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the demand notices, Annexures P.12, P.14 and P -16 respectively whereby respondents have claimed interest with respect of the instalment due from the petitioner for the site in dispute.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short HUDA) invited applications for allotment of residential plots in Sector 4, Mansa Devi Urban Complex. Petitioner, vide application dated 4.2.1984 applied for allotment of one plot. Along with the application, petitioner sent a demand draft in favour of HUDA for a sum of Rs. 24,284/ - being 10 per cent of the total tentative price for a plot of 2 Kanals. Allotment was made by draw of lots and the petitioner was declared successful and accordingly petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 27.4.1984 that he has been allotted residential plot. Under this letter, petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 42,498.10 representating 15 per cent of the tentative cost. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 20834 dated 20.7.1984, petitioner was issued allotment letter and after issuance of letter of allotment, the petitioner made a further payment of Rs. 33,391.10. Again, second instalment of Rs. 33,391.10 was made by demand draft dated 1.8.1986 and another sum of Rs. 33,391/ - being the third installment was paid by the petitioner vide demand draft dated 14.1.1988. During all this period, the petitioner through various letters, had been making requests for delivery of possession of plot. Having received no reply, petitioner sent another letter dated 19.5.1988 to which reply was given on 23.6.1988 whereby petitioner was informed that payment of three installment is still due but with regard to delivery of possession, it was stated that it would take some more time. Thereafter, no installment was paid by the petitioner as HUDA was not in a position to deliver possession. It has further been averred in the petition that the petitioner received show -cause notice purporting to be under section 17(i) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short the Act) asking the petitioner to deposit three installments along with interest on the delayed payment and further he has been asked to show cause as to why penalty of Rs. 17,117/ - be not imposed upon him. In response to this notice, vide letter dated 23.9.1992, the petitioner again requested for delivery of possession. Instead of delivering possession of plot, another notice under Section 17(i) of the Act was issued to the petitioner asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,64,856/ - and a further penalty of Rs. 26,487/ - be not imposed. Last letter received by the petitioner is dated March 22, 1993 whereby petitioner has been asked to pay Rs. 2,29,460/ - and further penalty of Rs. 26,487/ - be not imposed 14.9.1987 and thereafter @ 18% with effect from 15.1.1987. Demand notices whereby petitioner has been asked to pay interest and penal interest have been impugned in this writ petition on the ground that the demand raised by HUDA is wholly unjustified particularly when HUDA is not in a position to deliver possession of the plot.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the respondents are not justified in raising the demand of payment of interest. Allotment letter. Annexure P.2 contains terms and conditions of allotment of plot. Clause 6 of the allotment letter provides that the balance payment of 75 @ i.e. Rs. 2,00,346.65 of the tentative price of the plot can be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 6 annual installments. The first installment will fall due after the expiry of one year of the "date of issue of this letter. Each installment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10 per cent interest on the remaining amount. Interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession. Clause 7 of the allotment letter further provides that possession of the site will be offered on completion of the development work in the area. In view of these clauses of the allotment letter, it is neither legal nor equitable for HUDA, to claim interest with respect to the installments due from the petitioner. The plot was allotted in the year 1984 i.e. almost 11 years have passed but the petitioner is still to get possession of the plot. Respondents, in their written statement, have admitted that the land in dispute has still not been developed and the encroachment on the plot is yet to be removed. It is the respondents who are using the money of the petitioner without any benefit being given to the petitioner in this regard. It is the respondents who have violated the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Under clause 6 of the allotment letter, interest would accrue only from the date of offer of possession which in this case is still to be offered to the petitioner.