CHARANJIT BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of ours would dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 1270, 1283, 2975 and 5794 of 1985 as all these writ petitions raised substantially the same issues and the pleadings in the writ petitions also follow substantially the same pattern. Civil Writ Petition No. 1270 of 1985 is being treated as the main writ petition. It would, therefore, be convenient to refer to this petition and trace the facts therein :-

(2.) It was contended by Mr. Kuldip Singh, Senior Advocate, whose contention was adopted by the other learned counsel that after 3rd April, 1981, no enhancement in compensation has been made and as such no enhancement amount could be claimed from the petitioners on the pretext that the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the landowners was deposited late. We are afraid we are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel. Condition No.4, which has been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, clearly provides that the price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of the plot, as well as in case of enhancement of compensation of acquisition cost of land of this Sector by the Court or otherwise. As it transpires from the reading of the various affidavits filed by the Administrator, what has actually happened is that some awards enhancing the amount of compensation were made prior to 1st April, 1981, but the amount of compensation could not be deposited in Court, with the result that such amount till its deposit could not be included while calculating the recovery of enhanced price. Further, the plea that no award enhancing compensation was given after 1st April, 1981, is incorrect as in the affidavit dated 6th August, 1985, it has been specifically averred that the awards for the amount totalling Rs. 72,45,046.37 were announced after 1st April, 1981. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the calculation for demanding the enhanced amount of additional price was made only after HUDA had deposited the amount of compensation and it is on the basis of that calculation that the impugned notice, Annexure P.7, was issued to the plot holders. In reply to para 20, the Administrator in his written statement dated 19th April, 1985, has given complete chart showing figures on the basis of which calculation for enhanced amount of additional price for Rs. 37.75 has been made. For facility of reference the same is being reproduced hereunder :-

(3.) Under clause (4) of the agreement, the petitioners are legally bound to pay the enhanced amount of additional price demanded from them. Under this clause, HUDA has an absolute right to revise the price of the plot on the basis of the enhancement of compensation. Merely this fact that there has been some delay in depositing the amount of compensation in the Court by HUDA, it cannot be a valid ground to invalidate the demand made from the petitioners for the enhanced amount of additional price. The amount of enhanced compensation has been actually paid by HUDA and its burden must fall on all the plot holders. The contention of the learned counsel, as earlier observed, has no merit.