HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENf AUTHORITY & ANR. v. ER. HARSH JAIN & ORS .

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

Leave grant"d. H 783

p. 784 Copy page pinpoint

A This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made on December 15, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 7486/95. The undisputed facts are that the first respondent was given a provisional letter of allotment dated October 29, 1991 (for short, 'P.L.A.') in respect of an industrial plot al B Roz-ka- Meo, Industrial Estate, Gurgaon admeasuring 4000 sq. yard al tentative price of Rs. 2,42,000 worked at the rate of Rs. 60.50 per sq. yard. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000. In the P.L.A. the respondent was called upon to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35,500 within the stipulated period towards 25% cost of the land. The balance 75% was required to be paid in six annual equal instalments with interest at 10% C per annum subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated thereunder. The conditions as envisaged are :

"(i). To get the registration with the Directorate of Industries (GM/DIC) of the concerned Distt. or registration with DGTD/Minislry of Industry, Govt. of India, depending upon the D size of the Industrial undertaking i.e. small, medium or large.

(ii) To get the building plan approved from the competent authority.

E (iii) to gel sanction letter from the Financial Institution/ banks for financing the project.

(iv) To supply .list of plant and machinery alongwith quotations.

(v) To supply to Haryana State Electricity Board of release of Jn F electric connection to the proposed site. 1'

Para 3 provides that the first respondent was to communicate his acceptance of the provisional allotment \vithin the time specified therein. In case of non-receipt of acceptance it \Vas treated to have been \Vithdra\vn. In case the acceptance was received \vithin 30 days from the date of the G receipt of the provisional allotment, the PLA would be valid for a period of 90 days in case the project is under self-financing and 180 days in case he proposes to raise loan from HFC/Banks/All Indian Financial Institu- tions. In that event, he was required to furnish proof of having completed required formalities listed in para 2 to the satisfaction of the Authority. He H wa' also required to deposit security equivalent to 10% of the cost of the

HUDAv. HARSHJAIN 785

land which would be refundable on implementation of the project. The A security shall also stand forfeited if the construction was not started within three months from the date of the production of sanction or of two years after issue of the allotment letters. Clause 5 is relevant which is as under :

•Tn case the pre-requi~itc forn1alities as envisaged in para 3 are 11

completed within the stipulated period, the price mentioned in B para 2 will be charged at the time of issue of final letter of al1otn1cnt. Ho\vevcr, in case an extension of time-has been sought for completion of formalities the rates prevalent at the time of issue of final letter of allotment shall be charged."

Clause 8 says that PLA shall stand withdrawn automatically after c expiry of period n1cntionec.l in para 4 above \Vithout any further reference and no correspondence in this regard will be entertained.

It is not in dispute that the first respondent had proposed to start an industrial unit on obtaining finance from Industrial Financial Corporation. D It would appear that he had submitted his application to the Financial Institution for sanction of the lan<l on the last date of 180 days, na1ncly, April 5, 1992 and he sought for extension of time. The appellant had granted extension subject to the respondent paying at the rate of Rs. 1. per sq. yard per month by proceedings dated May 14, 1992. The respondent did not pay the e}.tension fee. The appellant, therefore, had declined to accept the request of the respondent by proceedings dated July 7, 1992 for further extension of time to pay the exte.nsion fee. In the meanwhile, the rates of the land had increased to Rs. 192.45 per sq. yard as on July 31,

1992. The final letter of allotment had thereafter came to be issued to the first respondent on November 23, 1992 calling upon him to pay at that rate in a sum of Rs. 9,20,680.80. The respondent had challenged the legality of the demand made by the appellant in filing the above writ petition. The High Court has directed the appellant to collect at the rate of Rs. 60.50 as per the PLA. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in terms of para 5 of the PLA, the respondent was bound to pay since he had not complied with the formalities under PLA in paras 2 and 3. Consequent- ly, the High Court was wrong in directing the appellant not to collect the rate prevailing as on the date of the final letter of allotment. The learned counsel for the respondenL' contended that the Government had changed H ..

p. 786 Copy page pinpoint

A its policy as on September 21, 1991 directing that even in case of non- compliance of the conditions in paras 2 and 3, the authorities should collect at the rates prevailing as on the date of issue of PLA since the plots remained not allotted and re-cycling of the finance gets stagnated and, therefore, the necessary allotment should be made only at the rate as on dated of issue of PLA. In support thereof, the learned counsel sought to place reliance on two letters, one by the Commissioner; Industries, Haryana and another letter addressed by the Deputy Director, Land Acquisition to the Director of Industries, Haryana. We have carefully scanned through the above two letters. These two letters were also relied upon by the High Court to conclude that the appellant is bound by the direction issued by the Government. A reading of the order passed by the Commissioner of Industries, Haryana dated June 15, 1993 would show in para 5 that the cost of the land communicated to the applicants in the LOl/PLA should remain unchanged during the extended period given to any applicant. In other words, it would mean that the order came lo be pa<Sed on June 15, 1993 with the above direction. It was endorsed to the authorities on June 21, 1993. Therefore, the directions to charge at the unchanged prices during the extended period would be applicable to those cases where the extension was to be completed after the aforesaid date but not to those which have already been finalised. It is not in dispute that final letter of allotment was issued to the first respondent on November 23, 1992 E by which date the prices of the land had been increased as on June 30, 1992 at the rate of Rs. 192.45 per sq. yard. Under these circumstances, the High Court was not right in directing the appellant to collect the prices of plot at Rs. 60.50 per sq. yard.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. Time is extended for payment of F the amount with interest al 10% as given in the final letter of allotment for a period of 5 months from today. In case the first respondent does not pay the amount within the time specified, the writ petition would stand dis- missed without further reference. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.