- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the learned Single Judge by his order dated October 29, 1998 has dismissed the second Appeal. Aggrieved against this order the present Special Leave Petition was filed and leave was granted by this Court. Pending appeal, the operation of the order of the learned single Judge was stayed, thereby the additional amount claimed by the respondents was stayed.
(2.) Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant herein was allotted Plot No. 940 vide allotment letter bearing No. 21548 dated august 20,1986 and he deposited an amount of rs. 18,600 in compliance of the conditions of the allotment and sent the required documents. The defendant-respondents demanded the annual instalment on account of the said plot and the plaintiff-appellant deposited the same vide receipt dated August 21,1987. After deposit of the total amount demanded by the defendant-respondents, again a demand was raised by the defendant-respondents by sending letter No. 1300 dated January 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant demanding a sum of rs. 38,400/- to be paid within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of the letter in respect of the above said plot. The plaintiff-appellant challenged this letter dated January 15, 1993 as illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice and on various other counts. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant was that the demand raised by the defendant-respondents is not valid as the said demand is not on account of any award given by any competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act and the defendant-respondents cannot revoke the allotment made in his favour. The plaintiff-appellant made a request to the defendant-respondents to revoke the letter dated January 15, 1993 but the defendant-respondents refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant was compelled to file the present suit with prayer for a declaration to the effect that the letter dated January 15, 1993 in respect of plot No. 940, Sector 14, Part, Hisar issued by defendant No. 2 is Illegal, void and liable to be set aside and he also prayed for consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from revoking, reviewing or cancelling the allotment letter issued by the defendants vide Memo No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986 and from taking any action on the basis of the aforesaid letter. The plaintiff-appellant also sought for temporary injunction directing the defendant-respondents to deliver the possession of the plot.
(3.) The defendant-respondents appeared and filed the written statement and raised number of preliminary objections as to the jurisdiction, maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, the defendant-respondents admitted that the allotment in favour of the appellant and also admitted issue of letter dated January 15, 1993. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant was bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter as in the said letter the price of the plot was tentative and the defendants were fully entitled to demand additional amount, the plaintif was under obligation to pay the same. On the basis of these pleadings, six issues were framed by the trial court which read as under: "1.Whether the letter No. 1300 dated 15.1.1993 issued by defendant no. 2 in respect of plot No. 940 is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for 3. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form 5_. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties 6. Relief. "both the parties were allowed to lead evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case examined one Krishan Kumar as P. W. 1 and the defendants examined one Rajpal as D. W. I. The trial court examined the matter in the light of the issues framed and evidence led therein. It was found that as per the condition No. 9 of the allotment letter the price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of the land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall be payable proportionately, as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand. It was also not disputed that the enhanced demand presently sought by the defendants has not been ordered by any authority under the Land acquisition Act. D. W. I- Rajpal admitted this fact in his cross-examination and as per D. W. 1 the present demand is in pursuance of the order issued by the Government directing the defendant No. 1 to pay higher amount of compensation to the Animal Husbandry Department. It was pointed out that this letter dated january 15, 1993 was issued under bond fide belief that Defendant No. 1 would be getting land from the Animal Husbandry Department at the rate of Rs. 1,21,000/- per acre but the government has refused to deliver possession of the land to Defendant No. 1 unless the price of the land at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre is paid by the Haryana Urban Development authority. Therefore, there is escalation of the price from Rs. 1,21,000/- to Rs. 3 lacs per acre which is proposed to be paid by Haryana urban Development Authority to the Animal husbandry Department and therefore, it was sought to be justified that as per Condition No. 9 the defendants were demanding the extra amount.;