BHUPENDER CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Non-Resident Indian. He applied for allotment of an industrial plot. Vide letter Annexure P-1 dated 3.5.1996 issued by the Estate Officer (HUDA-NRI), he was offered plot No. 644 measuring 450 square meters in Industrial Estate Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon. He deposited tentative price of the plot (Rs. 4,72,500) within the time stipulated in the said letter. After about 2 years of the offer of allotment, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula issued memo Annexure P.8 dated 30.4.1998 to the petitioner and called upon him to deposit revised tentative cost of the plot. He paid the revised tentative price on 11.9.1998. At the same time, he requested the concerned authority of HUDA that possession of the plot be given to him. Instead of entertaining his request, the Estate Officer HUDA asked the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum in lieu of the alleged delay in the payment of the tentative enhanced price as a condition precedent to the issuance of regular allotment letter. This has compelled the petitioner to file the present petition in which he has not only prayed for quashing of the demand of interest but has also prayed that the decision of the respondents to charge enhanced tentative cost be declared illegal and unconstitutional.

(2.) THE respondents have defended their action by contending that after having accepted the terms and conditions stipulated in the provisional allotment letter, the petitioner cannot challenge the charging of enhanced tentative cost and interest. They have relied on the Haryana Industrial Infrastructure Development Policy, 1997 to support their stand that the petitioner is liable to pay the enhanced tentative cost along with interest on the delayed payment. According to them, the demand notice dated 30.4.1998 was sent at the address given by the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot escape from the liability of paying interest on the delayed payment of the enhanced cost. They have also relied on the letter Annexure R.6 allegedly sent under the certificate of posting at the address given by the petitioner and have pleaded that he is bound to fulfil the condition of paying interest at the rate of 18% before regular allotment letter can be issued in his favour.

(3.) THE first contention of Shri I.S. Balhara is that the demand notice dated 30.4.1998 issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula should be declared as void because one year and six months before the issuance of the said notice the petitioner had deposited the total cost of the land. Learned counsel argued that the condition of charging enhanced cost could have been enforced against the petitioner only if such demand had been created prior to the deposit of price stipulated in the letter of allotment and not thereafter. The second contention of Shri Balhara is that the levy of interest should be declared as void because the petitioner did not delay the deposit of enhanced tentative cost. He took us through the averments made in the writ petition to show that the petitioner had deposited the enhanced cost immediately after having acquired knowledge about the demand created vide notice dated 30.4.1998.