Petitioners seeking refund of deposited penalty and interest regarding social housing complex allotment. Court dismissed petition noting petitioners no longer held interest in property as it was sold in 2004, and refund would constitute undue enrichment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 13077 of 2011
Date of decision: February 06, 2012
Prem Chand and another
.. Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.
Hemant Gupta, J.
The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming refund of the amount deposited by them on account of penalty and interest.
Initially, the petitioners were allotted SCO No. 22 Sector 17, Kurukshetra vide letter of allotment dated 28.8.1986. The petitioners had deposited the earnest money of 16,800/- and also deposited 15% of the tentative price i.e. 25,200/-. However, on 8.10.1987 alternative SCO site No.29 was allotted. The petitioners did not deposit the remaining installments which were payable half yearly. The first installment fell due on 28.2.1987. Since the installments were not paid, the petitioners were served with a show cause notice for resumption dated 1.5.1992, Annexure P/2 and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, an order was passed on 4.2.1993 imposing penalty of `19506/- to be deposited
C.W.P. No. 13077 of 2011
-2-
within 30 days.
Aggrieved against the said imposition of penalty, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short, 'the Forum'). The learned Forum, vide order dated 7.3.2002 allowed the claim filed by the petitioners. However, the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula on 1.10.2010. It is thereafter, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the levying of penalty, interest and extension fee for the reasons that the possession of the site was offered only on 28.2.1994, therefore, the respondents cannot claim any penalty or extension fee in terms of the allotment letter.
In the written statement filed, the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners have not paid the amount of installments in terms of the conditions of the letter of allotment for which a show cause notice was issued. It has also been pointed out that a conveyance deed was executed in favour of the petitioners on 19.3.2002. The said plot was sold and fresh reallotment was issued on 7.1.2004. The vendee has raised construction and occupation certificate has since been issued on 28.11.2006. Thereafter, the SCO in question was again sold in respect of which re-allotment letter was again issued on 9.2.2007. Thus, it is pointed out that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition, as the plot stands sold by them. Reliance has also been placed on the Supreme Court's judgment passed in
U.T. Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjeet Singh & others (2009) 4
SCC 660, wherein the claim of interest irrespective of provisions of
C.W.P. No. 13077 of 2011
-3-
amenities was accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that since the petitioners have deposited the amount of penalty and interest, therefore, the said amount is refundable to the petitioners alone. The learned counsel for the petitioners also place reliance on the judgment delivered in case Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association (Regd.) vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 1 SCC 485 to contend that since the possession was offered on 28.2.1994, therefore, the interest cannot be claimed prior to the offer of possession in terms of letter of allotment.
We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per terms of the allotment letter dated 28.8.1986, the balance tentative price could be paid either in lump sum within 60 days without interest or in installments along with interest. The condition of the allotment is that the interest shall accrue from the date of offer of possession. It means that the petitioners were under obligation to pay installments in terms of the letter of allotment without interest on the day it fell due. The lack of offer of possession will only give benefit to the petitioners not to pay interest. But failure to deposit installments on the due dates makes the petitioners liable to pay penalty. It is the said amount which is claimed from the petitioners vide Annexure P/4. The details of the payments deposited by the petitioners from time to time shows that even after the possession was offered, the petitioners have taken sufficient time to deposit the amount. The petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.38,000/- on 30.05.1992.
Still further, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this
C.W.P. No. 13077 of 2011
-4-
Court after they have no interest in the property left. They have sold the property in the year 2004 and the property has been further sold. The refund of the amount at this stage will amount undue enrichment to the petitioner, which is not permissible.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present petition
and the same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) Judge
February 06, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak/vimal Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether penalty and interest levied for delay in payment shall be refunded after allottee has sold the property.
Whether interest can be claimed prior to offer of possession in terms of allotment letter conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
U.T. Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjeet Singh & othersReferred¶19
U.T. Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjeet Singh & others (2009) 4 SCC 660 · Who else cites this
Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association (Regd.) vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶26
Bahadurgarh Plot Holders Association (Regd.) vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 1 SCC 485 · Who else cites this
Prem Chand and another
State of Haryana
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
