- (1.) Leave granted. The singular grievance that has emerged in these appeals by special leave is whether the High Court is justified in placing reliance on the decision rendered in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Anr. v. Raj Pal, 2011 13 SCC 504, for the purpose of coming to hold as follows: "In the present case, even from the report of the Local Commissioner, it is apparent that the basic amenities such as water supply, roads and sewerage are available the allottees have started work in the New Anaj Mandi, which is apparent from the fact that Market Committee has realized substantial amount of market fee from the conduct of the transactions of sale and purchase in new Market yard vis-a-vis the transaction of sale and purchase conducting in old Market yard. The basic amenities have been provided. May be there is scope of improvement of quality of amenities provided, but that will not absolve the allottees/lessees not to pay the interest on the amount of instalments.
(2.) On a perusal of the said authority, it is manifest that the two-Judge Bench has noted the contention in paragraph 9, which is as follows: "The Appellants contend that the Market Committee had not undertaken to provide any specific facilities as on the date of auction sale; that the basic infrastructural facilities were available in the market and works relating to other facilities were in progress; that the public notice regarding auction and the allotment letters made it clear that interest was chargeable from the date of allotment; that it was clear from the letters of allotment, that on receipt of the same, the allottees were entitled to approach the Market Committee for possession; that in the absence of any provision that the Market Committee will not be entitled to charge interest until the basic facilities were provided, the terms of allotment providing for payment of interest and penal interest were enforceable; and that the issue of payment of interest/penal interest/cannot be linked to providing of all facilities in the market."
(3.) Thereafter, this Court has referred to the decisions in U.T. Chandigarh Admn. v. Amarjeet Singh, 2009 4 SCC 660 and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd, 2006 4 SCC 109 and the rule, that is, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 1997 (for short, 'the 1997 Rules') and opined as follows: "The aforesaid decisions, when read with reference to the provisions of the rules applicable make it clear that the allottees were liable to pay the instalments and simple interest thereon in terms of the letters of allotment. However, having regard to the admitted position emerging from the counter affidavit filed by the Appellants before the High Court, the basic amenities of water and sewerage disposal were not available when the allotment letters were issued and the said works were commenced only in 2001 and 2002 and were in progress even in the year 2007. It is in these circumstances, apparently, some of the allottees did not commence construction or did not commence their business. Be that as it may. In view of the principles laid down in Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association , Shantikunj and Amarjeet Singh , it is clear that the allottees cannot postpone the payment of instalments merely on the ground that some of the amenities were not ready. If they were not entitled for postponement of the instalments, it follows that they will be liable to pay the normal interest on the delayed instalments up to date of payment. However, having regard to the fact that the Rules did not contemplate compound interest and penal interest and the Market Committee was yet to complete certain infrastructural work like water, sewerage disposal, as held in Shantikunj , the Market Committee will not be entitled to claim any compound interest or penal interest.";