Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.3.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which appeal filed by present Appellants -Defendants against judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, decreeing the suit filed by Respondent -Plaintiff, was dismissed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that Respondent -Plaintiff, i.e., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'BSNL') was allotted 2.18 acre of land in Sector 14, Part II, Sirsa Road, Hisar, for construction of dwelling unit for its staff, as per the terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 24.7.1996, Ex.P20. As per said letter, Respondent -Plaintiff was to deposit 16,22,570/ -on or before 31.12.1996 as 10% of the total sale consideration, i.e., earnest money. There is no dispute that the said amount was deposited by Respondent -Plaintiff with Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar on 7.10.1996, i.e., much before the stipulated date which was 31.12.1996. Further as per terms and conditions of Ex.P20, after deposit of 10% of the sale consideration, letter of intent was to be issued by present Appellants for depositing the remaining amount. However, the same was never issued. Rather letter Ex.P11 dated 30.5.1997 was issued modifying the terms and conditions of letter Ex.P20 informing the Respondent -Plaintiff that Appellants would charge from them the rate prevalent in calendar year 1997 qua the allotted land. Hence, both the Courts came to the conclusion that the demand of Appellants -Defendants for charging the rate prevalent in calendar year 1997 for the allotted land to Respondent -Plaintiff is not legal and rather they are entitled to charge the price as mentioned in original letter of allotment, Ex.P20.
(3.) ONLY point argued by learned Counsel for the Appellants is that it was for Respondent -Plaintiff to inform the Chief Administrator, HUDA, about deposit of 10% of the earnest money with Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar. Though plea was taken by Respondent -Plaintiff that even Chief Administrator, HUDA, was informed of this fact, however, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that it was the duty of officials of the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, as well to inform Appellant No. 2 with regard to timely receipt of payment in their office and for issuance of letter of intent. If there is any fault at the level of Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, in not informing the Chief Administrator about deposit of Rs. 16,22,570/ -from Respondent -Plaintiff on account of which letter of intent could not be issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Respondent -Plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay extra price.;