SUBASH CHUGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN CM No. 7862 of 1996 came up for orders, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, the Additional Advocate-General Haryana and the counsel representing the Haryana Urban Development Authority agreed to have the writ petition itself argued and disposed of. On the basis of this agreement between the counsels, I have heard the arguments today and am disposing of the writ petition in the following terms.

(2.) THE Estate Officer of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'huda') issued advertisement for the sale of residential plots in Sector 14 (Part-11) at Karnal, in December, 1984. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot measuring 209 Sq. meters. He was issued allotment letter No. 15437/11. 9. 1985. He was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 7139-70 within 30 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. The balance amount of Rs. 33,659. 10 was to be paid in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual instalments with 10% interest. The petitioner deposited the entire amount including 10% interest on the balance amount of Rs. 33,659. 1 0 in six instalments. The final instalment was paid in December, 1991. He was not given possession of the plot in Sector 14 (Part-11) at Karnal. Instead, he was informed that he could have an alternative site, in Sector 9 at the revised rates. The petitioner was to pay enhanced price at the rate of Rs. 163. 30 per Sq. yard amounting to Rs. 40819. 12 within 30 days from the date of receipt of letter dated 9a1992. The petitioner was not prepared to take possession of the plot in Sector 9; he wanted to have the plot in Sector 14 (Part II) namely the plot No. 616. On this basis, he approached this Court inter-alia praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot him the plot No. 616 in Sector 14 (Part II) and not to demand the additional amount of Rs. 40819. 12 in respect of plot No. 970-p in Sector 9. The petitioner also wanted interest on Rs. 44838. 30 deposited by him towards the price of the old plot at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) NOW , it is agreed by the learned counsel on either side that HUDA had to abandon the idea to develop Sector 14 (11) since they could not take possession of this land. I believe that plots in Sector 14 (11) cannot be allotted on amounts received from the petitioner and other similarly situated persons. On account of this, the petitioner and others are allotted alternative sites in Sector 9. When plot in Sector 9 is allotted to the petitioner, he is bound to pay the price fixed by HUDA for the said plot. On account of delayed payment, the petitioner is also liable to pay interest on the amount claimed. Learned counsel representing the petitioner agreed to pay the amount claimed by HUDA together with the interest for getting possession of the plot No. 970-p in Sector 9. On payment of that amount with interest, the learned counsel representing HUDa agreed to surrender that land to the petitioner.