HARBINDER BAJWA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 16328 of 1993, 15900 of 1993 and 500 of 1994 as common question of law and facts arises in all the three writ petitions. For facility of reference facts, are taken from C. W. P. No. 16328 of 1993.

(2.) PETITIONER was allotted House No. 155, Sector 6, Karnal, measuring 405 sq. yards by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short the HUDA) for Rs. 70470/- (tentative price ). 10 per cent of the tentative price was deposited along with the application and the remaining 15 per cent was deposited on receipt of allotment letter dated 15-4-1982. The remaining balance amount was to be paid in six instalments which according to the petitioner has already been paid. Later, HUDA demanded additional amount to the tune of Rs. 2004. 75p, 9193. 50p, 10311. 50p, 28446. 65p. 17041. 55p, 13851. 00p and 23424. 65p vide Annexures P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5 and P-6 which was paid by the petitioner. Petitioner has averred that he has been served with show-cause notice dated 26-11-1993 (Annexure P-7) under Section 17 (i) and 17 (ii) of the HUDA Act intimating that an amount of Rs. 63826/- is still outstanding against him and he has been called upon to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs. 6382/- be not imposed upon him. Petitioner has further averred that on receipt of the demand/show-cause notice, he requested HUDA many a times requesting for supply of details of the exact amount of additional cost of acquisition of land paid by HUDA to the land owners on the basis of which the calculations of additional price in question have been made and demanded from the petitioner, but the same have not been supplied to him. Challenge to the demand thus, has been made on the ground that HUDA cannot recover the enhanced price from the petitioner without affording an opportunity of being heard because the price has been enhanced in an arbitrary manner without disclosing anything regarding enhancement of compensation in land acquisition proceedings. In the writ petition, petitioner has also challenged the demand of interest made by HUDA.

(3.) IT has firstly been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount of additional price has been calculated without giving any show cause notice and hence, the demand notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice.