- (1.) All these writ petitions challenge the methodology adopted by Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) (for short 'Corporation') in calculating the additional price to be paid by the allottees of various categories pursuant to the enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired for the purpose of allotment. Of course, few writ petitions have brought in certain additional issues as well. As common issues have broadly arisen for determination in these writ petitions, we have proposed to dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgement.
(2.) The admitted facts:- a) The Government of Haryana acquired land measuring 256 acre- 3 kanal-17 marla vide award dated 28.3.1997, 1490 acre-2 kanal-6 marla vide award dated 3.4.1997 and 2 acre-5 kanal-16 marla vide award dated 11.8.1998 for the purpose of developing Phase I of Industrial Model Town (for short 'IMT'), Manesar by the Corporation. It has been developed as an integrated complex for industrial, residential, commercial, institutional and other permissible uses. References had been made by the land owners invoking the provision under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 praying for enhancement of compensation. The reference Court at Gurgaon vide orders dated 5.2.2003 and 12.2.2004 fixed the market value of Block A land falling within 500 yards of the National Highway (NH-8) at Rs. 6,89,333/- per acre against the value of Rs. 4,13,600/- per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). It is to be noted that the market value of land comprised in Block B was not at all increased by the reference Court. The land owners chose to challenge the orders of the reference Court by filing Regular First Appeal before this Court. It may also be noted that the Corporation did not challenge the award passed by the reference Court. By a common order dated 19.5.2006, this Court fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15 lac per acre alongwith all statutory benefits. It goes without saying that statutory benefits include interest @ 12% from the date of notification till the date of award in addition to 30% enhanced cost as solatium plus interest at 9% on the amounts so payable for one year and thereafter interest @ 15% on the amount due till the final payment. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, the Corporation and the land owners filed Special Leave Petitions (for short 'SLPs') before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The batch of SLPs were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17.8.2010 and enhanced the compensation for the entire land acquired at Rs. 20 lac per acre alongwith all statutory benefits. The story further goes on that Review Petitions were filed by the Corporation. A sum of Rs. 872 crores was deposited by the Corporation in terms of the interim orders passed therein. But ultimately, the Review Petitions were dismissed on 2.7.2012 with cost of Rs. 25,000/- per case. A direction also was issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that entire enhanced compensation should be deposited at the rate of Rs. 20 lac per acre alongwith statutory benefits within a period of 3 months. The fact remains that the Corporation has deposited Rs. 1325.39 crores towards the total enhanced portion of compensation. The Corporation issued a final notice vide letter dated 24.9.2012 demanding payment of Rs. 3552/- per sq.mtr. towards additional price to be paid by allottees on account of the final compensation arrived at by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been sought to be quashed in these writ petitions contending that such a demand has been made by the Corporation arbitrarily, illegally, unjustly, unreasonably, irrationally and unconscionably, contrary to the principle of "No Profit, No Loss" on the basis of which respondent No.2-Corporation operates.
(3.) The common pleadings of the writ petitioners:- a) The respondent-Corporation is operating its activities of promoting the industrial estates on 'No Profit, No Loss' basis as declared in their annual statement of accounts. In other words, it is not carrying on any of its activities for profit. Enhanced demand from the allottees should have been made only after duly adjusting the realizations made by the Corporation out of this venture. Though an extent of 1736 acre-6 kanal-4 marla was acquired, the details of tentative price analysis would reflect the total area including the saleable at 1720 acres. There was no explanation from the respondent-Corporation as to what happened to the remaining 16 acres of land. The respondent-Corporation failed to provide details of parameters followed in fixing the tentative price and also the realization of the remaining area. The respondent-Corporation sold some industrial plots for speculative price and recovered a sum of Rs. 486.60 crores. That apart, a sum of Rs. 45.99 cores had been collected towards penalty imposed on the allottees concerned for not constructing the building in time. A sum of Rs. 351.52 crores had also been collected by the respondent-Corporation out of the sale of commercial area in Phase I, IMT, Manesar. The said amounts were not adjusted towards additional price fixed on account of enhanced compensation awarded by the respective Courts. In other words, the respondent-Corporation had already recovered much more than the actual cost incurred by it towards the project. b) No interest can be demanded by the respondent-Corporation for the period intervening between deposit of enhanced compensation and the date of issue of notice as per the settled position of law by this Court. c) The petitioners in CWP No.12476 of 2013 have contended that the petitioners had already paid the amount immediately after the receipt of notice of demand from the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the impugned notice was illegal, inasmuch as the amount already paid was not given credit to. d) The petitioners in CWP No.8895 of 2013 have contended that the petitioners were entitled to 20% rebate in the tentative price fixed by the respondent-Corporation, as the petitioners had started commercial production within the stipulated period of 3 years. But 20% rebate was released only after a delay of 6 years. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to interest on the amount of Rs. 48,60,000/- paid towards 20% rebate for 6 long years. It is further contended that the petitioners are entitled to 20% rebate on the additional price of the plot now calculated and fixed after the enhancement in compensation. e) The petitioners in CWP No.11414 of 2014 and CWP No.12919 of 2014 have strenuously contended that there was no clause in regular letter of allotment obligating the petitioners to make payment of any additional price of plot in the event of enhancement in compensation. Therefore, it is pleaded that the notice issued without any clause in the Regular Letter of Allotment demanding additional price of the plot is illegal. f) The petitioners in CWP No.8985 of 2013 would set up a plea that they had purchased the property in the auction conducted by the respondent-Corporation and, therefore, they were not bound to pay any additional price of plot. The impugned notice has been issued arbitrarily, it was contended. g) The writ petitioners in CWP No.12099 of 2013 would contend that the entire demand made by the respondent-Corporation was met by the petitioners and therefore, the demand notice was illegal.;