The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition by a petitioner challenging the enhanced price demanded for an industrial plot. The Court held that the original provisional allotment was withdrawn when the petitioner failed to complete required formalities.
Petitioner denied allotment at original price; writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12486 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 19, 2011
Dr. B.M. Abroi
..Petitioner
VERSUS
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Bakshi, Advocate for
Mr. Sikander Bakshi, Advocate,
for the respondents.
RANJIT SINGH
The petitioner has claimed that he is a specialist in speech and hearing aids. He is stated to have worked as Associated Professor in the Department of E.N.T. heading the speech and Hearing Centre at All India Institute of Medical & Science, New Delhi. The petitioner has also claimed to be honorary Director of the Haryana Welfare Centre for the Deaf and also President of the Indian Speech and Hearing Association. The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the respondents to allot him one industrial plot
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
2
at Gurgaon at the old rates. This prayer is made in the background of facts noticed hereinafter.
The petitioner being desirous of setting up a project so as to manufacture hearing aids, hearing testing equipments and surgical equipments, had made an application for allotment of industrial plot at Gurgaon. It is stated that the petitioner took this step to reduce the import burden on the foreign exchange so that these equipments can be provided to the people at a cheaper price. As per the petitioner, the imported hearing aids are very expensive, which number of poor patients cannot afford. It is in this background the petitioner wished to set up this project. He had also intention to employ deaf persons so that this project could be called industry ‘for deaf and by the deaf’.
Considering the request of the petitioner, respondent-HUDA allotted one industrial plot No.26, Sector 18, Gurgaon to the petitioner on 21.7.1984. Tentative price of this plot measuring 1 acre, as allotted to the petitioner, was `6,19,490/-. This was also required to be paid in instalments as per the usual conditions of such allotment. The petitioner was required to fulfill all these formalities. Copy of the allotment letter is annexed with petition as Annexure P-1.
The petitioner took possession of this plot on 5.9.1985. He had submitted requisite drawings of the building and also took steps to file the project report before the Haryana Financial Corporation for financial assistance. He had also made an application for supply of electricity. This information was duly
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
3
communicated to the respondents. Unfortunately, during this time, the wife of the petitioner expired. The petitioner, thereafter, was left alone to run around for setting up this project. It is obvious that the petitioner was not able to complete or commence the project for considerable period. The respondents issued a memo dated 14.2.1990 intimating the petitioner that the allotment of the plot made in his favour stood withdrawn. The petitioner was also advised to get the refund of amount of ` 1,61,693/- deposited by him. Copy of this communication has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
The petitioner appealed against this order. His plea was that he was specifically not informed about the steps taken to complete the formalities. The appellate authority accepted his appeal on 19.7.1990. The petitioner was given 180 days time to complete the formalities. Thereafter, the petitioner again initiated steps to fulfill all the formalities. While he was in process of arranging financial resources from Haryana Financial Corporation and the matter was under consideration of the Corporation, the respondents were pleased to grant extension of completing the formalities upto 16.1.1991, While the process was on, the petitioner received another communication dated 1.2.1991, which surprised him as he was asked to pay a price of `37,04,584.90. Earlier allotment in his favour had not been cancelled. The direction to resume the industrial plot had been quashed. The petitioner, accordingly, would plead that there was no need to issue this fresh allotment letter and the enhancement price. Accordingly, the petitioner would contest the action of the respondents in demanding
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
4
this enhanced price against the original agreed price as intimated. The price fixed was at the rate of 616.66 per square yards, whereas the original agreed price was 154.87 per square yards.
The petitioner submits that the perusal of this communication gives an impression as if it is a fresh allotment. Relying upon the order passed by the Chief Administrator HUDA, while deciding his appeal, it is pleaded that no such condition for enhancement of price was put by the appellate authority. The petitioner, accordingly, made representation and pointed out that enhanced price was beyond his capacity. The respondents replied that the enhanced price was being charged in terms of the policy and communication in this regard is sent to the petitioner on 13.3.1991. The petitioner has, accordingly, approached this Court to challenge this action of the respondents.
In the reply filed, the respondents have disclosed that no physical possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner and possession on papers only was given on 5.9.1985. It is stated that that the petitioner failed to complete the formalities mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment. Respondents would also plead that the petitioner was bound to complete formalities within 180 days. Since he has failed to do so within the stipulated period, the provisional letter of allotment was withdrawn on 14.2.1990. It is conceded fact that the appeal of the petitioner was allowed giving him 180 days more time to complete the formalities. As per the respondents, Annexure P-1 was a provisional letter of allotment, which was withdrawn and regular allotment of the plot was
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
5
made on 1.2.1991. The respondents, accordingly, would oppose the prayer made in the writ petition.
I have heard counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioner would emphasis that the earlier letter of allotment was never cancelled. Action of the respondents in enhancing the price would not be permissible. Taking this to be a case of demanding enhanced price, the counsel placed reliance on Haryana Development Authority and another Versus
Ranjan Dhamina and another, AIR 1997 SC 1732 to support his pleas. Counsel contends that the enhancement of price is postulated only when cost is enhanced and when there is no enhancement on account of award by the competent authority, the demand of additional price on account of any other escalation has been held illegal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
To the contrary, counsel for the respondent-HUDA pleads that initially the letter issued to the petitioner was only a provisional letter of allotment and the same was withdrawn. Once the appeal of the petitioner was allowed, he was issued a fresh allotment letter demanding the price. Accordingly, the counsel contends that this is not a case of enhancement of price. Rather the counsel pleads that this is a case of an automatic cancellation once the formalities required to be completed in terms of the allotment letter were not fulfilled. The plea is that the allotment of a plot would stand cancelled automatically and there was no need to show any specific order. In support, the counsel has placed reliance on Chaman Lal Singhal Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
6
others, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 313 . In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that no letter of acceptance is sent by any allottee and when amount is also not paid within the stipulated time, cancellation of the allotment would be in terms of the allotment letter. Rather the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 17 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, provided for resumption and forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer would have no application and question of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise as there is no agreement/contract.
When this case came up for hearing, counsel for the respondents was required to have instructions whether this plot is still available in that condition and whether it has been allotted to anybody else or if allotment has been specifically cancelled. The counsel points out that the plot is lying as such and there is no specific cancellation. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter was given an option to pay the price as demanded by the respondents along with interest for a period for which he has not made any payment. Counsel, however, pleads that he is entitled to allotment of this plot only at the original price through provisional letter of allotment, which according to him was never cancelled.
In view of above stand, the only issue requiring consideration in determining the plea is if the alleged allotment made through Annexure P-1 was ever cancelled or can still be kept revived as per the facts as noticed. It is clear that Annexure P-1 is only an offer of allotment of industrial plot and through this the petitioner was intimated the tentative price of the plot. In terms of the letter the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
7
petitioner was required to accept this offer. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner has ever accepted this offer. There is justification in the plea raised by the counsel for the respondents that this was only a provisional allotment and once the petitioner has failed to complete the formalities required in terms of this communication, he had no right to plead allotment in terms of this communication. The respondents would seek support from the case of Chaman Lal Singhal (supra) . The cancellation of allotment in terms of the allotment letter has to follow. The sole argument raised by the respondents is that the offer made in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner has not contradicted this plea in any manner. This offer had been made in the year 1984. The petitioner still was in the process of completing all the formalities when this offer was withdrawn. If the offer had not been withdrawn, there was no cause for the petitioner to approach e Chief Administrator. The action of the respondents in demanding the price as indicated in the allotment letter cannot be faulted. Since the petitioner is not prepared to accept this offer, his prayer for allotment of the plot which will now fetch a fortune, is neither fair nor justified and so cannot be accepted. There is a condition in the allotment letter issued to the petitioner for deposit of requisite amount which he has not complied. The only amount deposited by the petitioner was pursuant to the provisional letter of allotment. The petitioner took no action to comply with the conditions of the allotment letter. There is no case made either in equity or otherwise in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12486 of 1991
8
July 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an offer for provisional allotment of an industrial plot could be revived after failing to complete formalities.
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the plot at the original tentative price.
Whether the withdrawal of the provisional allotment letter was valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Haryana Development Authority and another Versus Ranjan Dhamina and anotherReferred¶40
Haryana Development Authority and another Versus Ranjan Dhamina and another, AIR 1997 SC 1732 · Who else cites this
Chaman Lal Singhal Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and othersReferred¶42
Chaman Lal Singhal Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 313 · Who else cites this
Dr. B.M. Abroi
Haryana Urban Development Authority
another
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
