- (1.) Challenge in the present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is to an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.8.2011, whereby the demand notice dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure P-1) calling upon the writ petitioners to pay interest on the additional price of Rs. 139.69 per square yards was set aside.
(2.) In the writ petition, the challenge was to the demand notice dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure P-1), whereby an additional amount of Rs. 108.86 per square meter (Rs.139.69 per square yard) w.e.f. 30.11.1991 and Rs. 337.33 per square meter w.e.f. 14.8.1995 was demanded along with interest @ 10%.
(3.) Earlier, the said demand notice dated 30.11.1991 came to be challenged in two civil suits before the learned civil court at Hisar. The second demand notice came to be challenged in eight civil suits before the civil court, Hisar. The said suits were decreed by the learned trial Court on 7.1.1999 and 24.12.1998 in respect of each demand raised, respectively. The learned trial court at the same time observed that the defendants are entitled to recover additional price after calculating the same as per the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings), Regulation 1978. The said judgment and decrees passed by the learned trial Court has been affirmed in appeals vide the separate judgment and decrees dated 14.6.2001. The learned trial Court held the following effect in Judgment Annexure P-6: - "38. ..... As stated above there are great contradictions in Ex. P15 and the calculations made on the back of demand notices cannot sustain. Thus in view of the fact that the plaintiffs are not denying their liability to pay the enhanced price and they have not challenged the authority of defendants in the present suit to claim the additional price in the present suit. Therefore, the decision in this regard in Ravinder Narula vs. HUDA,1995 2 LJR 6 is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that in the decision in Harbinder Bajwa vs. State of Haryana, 1996 114 PunLR 621 wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court that if the allottee fails to pay the enhanced amount in time, then interest @ 15% can be charged but from a perusal of this authority it reveals that while giving decision on this point the Hon'ble Judge has relied upon the decision in Full Bench Chander Mani vs. HUDA Kurukshetra etc., 1990 98 PunLR 6 but from a perusal of the decision in Full Bench judgment it reveals that as the Ld. Advocate General, Haryana took up the matter with the authorities concerned (as has been enumerated therein), therefore, it was held that interest @ 15% P.A. Shall be charged on the balance amount which shall remain unpaid after payment of 7th installment of 50% within 3 years of the issue of notice with original cost of the plot. As it was found that HUDA was found charging enhanced compensation as per New Land Acquisition Act. But in the case in hand, no such relief as was granted by the HUDA to the allottees has been granted to the plaintiffs, therefore, to my mind decision in this case is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. 39. Thus, viewed, it is held that the demand notices issued by the HUDA are against the law and facts and arbitrarily and the defendants cannot resume the plots of the plaintiffs on account no payment of additional price. So far as the relief regarding rendition of account is concerned. The same was not pressed during the course of arguments by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, all these issues are disposed of in favour of the plaintiffs. 45. As a result of my findings on crucial issue no. 1 to 3 above, the plaintiffs succeed and the suit filed by them is hereby decreed and a decree of declaration is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants declaring the demand notice dated 14.8.1995 issued by the defendants claiming additional price as illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and a decree for permanent injunction is passed against the defendants from recovering the additional price as demanded under the impugned notices and from taking any action for resumption of the plots in question on the basis of the notices as demanded in impugned notices. However, it is made clear that the defendants shall be entitled to recover additional price after calculating it as per the regulations of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Act, 1978 and as per the law laid down on the subject and as per the observations made in the suit after properly dividing the amount of enhanced compensation on the entire land.";