Civil Writ Petition No.15938 of 1991(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Writ Petition No.15938 of 1991(O&M) J.N.Luthra (deceased through LRs) and others ... Petitioners VERSUS The Housing Board Haryana and another ... Respondents and Civil Writ Petition No.15858 of 2005(O&M) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ... Petitioner VERSUS The Housing Board Haryana and another ... Respondents Decided on : May 19, 2011 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for petitioners No.11 & 18. (in CWP No.15938 of 1991) Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. (in CWP No.15858 of 2005) Mr.V.K.Vashisht, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.15938 of 1991 and 15858 of 2005, as the question to be determined is Civil Writ Petition No.15938 of 1991(O&M) [ 2 ] similar and identical, which is reproduced as under:- Whether the enhancement of the price made by the respondent Board with regard to the houses allotted from the acquired land was unjust, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, equity and fair play? Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Jan Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) Panipat & others vs. Housing Board Haryana & Others, 2003(2) PLR 526. To the contrary, counsel for the petitioners have stated that the present writ petitions are not covered by the aforesaid decision. Having gone through the records of the case, it is revealed that a similar question, “whether the enhanced compensation awarded to the land-owners could be recovered from the consequential allottees of the plots?” as has arisen for determination in the instant case, was adjudicated upon by this Court in the cited case. While dealing with the matter, the Single Judge in the said case observed as under:- “13. A half-hearted attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the allottees ought to have been associated in determining the additional price recoverable and before the impugned letters of demand were issued. I have already discussed that there was no occasion for any determination by the Board and adherence to the principles of Audi Alteram Partem are not even remotely attracted in the present case. This contention need not detain me any further in Civil Writ Petition No.15938 of 1991(O&M) [ 3 ] view of the judgment of this Court in the case of M.S.Dutta and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(1) RCR (Civil) 369 (P&H) (DB) : (1989-1) PLR 524, where the court held as under:- “The allottee accepted the allotment of the plot subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. The allottee is not only liable to pay the additional enhanced price of the land but also the costs of acquisition which includes solatium, interest and legal expenditure incurred by respondent No.2 in defending acquisition and the Award of the Land Acquisition Collector at all the stages mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act. There is no requirement in law that the allottee has to be associated in determining the additional price recoverable from it. Of course, if the allottee disputes the calculation made by the Estate Officer, he or she can move the authorities for inspection of the record to ascertain how the additional price was worked out and if any discrepancy is found, it could be brought to the notice of the Estate Officer who will rectify all genuine mistakes but the allottee cannot insist that before assessing the enhanced price an opportunity of hearing ought to be afforded to him because this requirement neither flows from the statute nor on the ground of equity because the matter is purely of Civil Writ Petition No.15938 of 1991(O&M) [ 4 ] calculation of the additional price as per judgment rendered by the Reference court, High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Both the judgments referred to by the learned counsel do not advance his case.” 14. The letter of allotment issued by the Board cannot be treated or termed as a statutory contract. This concept is not even attracted in the facts of the present case. As per the case of the petitioners as well, no contract under regulation 11(4) in Form A had even been executed. However, I would still proceed to discuss the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the format of the alleged agreement and the allotment with reference to other documents on record be taken to be the basis for judging the merit of the plea of estoppel against the Board in raising the afore-noticed demands” It has further been disclosed by counsel for the respondents that the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed and the judgment has become final. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the instant writ petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed. May 19, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE