IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4147 of 2006 Date of decision: 4th September, 2009 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another … Petitioners Versus Kavinder Parkash … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by executing Court whereby petitioner has been ordered to charge Rs.825/- per square meter for allotment of plot. Claim of the petitioner that plot is to be allotted at the rate of Rs.2400/- per square meter was rejected. The land of Kavinder Parkash was acquired by Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HUDA’). Being oustee, respondent was entitled to allotment of plot. The right of the respondent to allotment flows from the policy formulated by HUDA. The policy has been annexed with the present revision petition as Annexure R- 4. This policy was formulated on 18th March, 1992. The policy notices that an oustee will be entitled to developed plot of a size, which will depend upon the area of acquired land, subject to maximum of 500 square yards. The policy further stated that the allotment of plot to the oustee will be Civil Revision No. 4147 of 2006 made at the allotment rates advertised by HUDA for that sector. It will be pertinent to reproduce condition No.5 of the policy, which reads as under: “(v) As per the policy the oustee shall be entitled to a developed plot/plots the size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yds. The oustee shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in the same town where his land was situated/ located. However, in cases where the land of a person situated in the same town is acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area/ acquired (as different times) for purposes of claiming the benefit under this policy. Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for that sector. Land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired.” The respondent was denied benefit of the policy. Therefore, he was left with no other option, except to approach the Civil Court. The respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed on 17th January, 2004. The petitioner HUDA filed an appeal. Same was dismissed. Petitioner continued to pursue its legal remedy and filed Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 2005, which was also dismissed by this Court on 17th January, 2005. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition No. 7273 of 2005 was filed and same was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 21st April, 2005. The respondent, the successful oustee, filed execution petition. The executing Court vide impugned order held that Judgment Debtors are bound to allot the plot to the decree holder at the rate of Rs.825/- per square meter and the claim of the judgment debtors that the price of plot be fixed at Rs.2400/- per square meter, was found to be without any merit. Aggrieved against the same, HUDA has filed present revision petition. 2 Civil Revision No. 4147 of 2006 Mr. J.P. Bhatt appearing for the petitioners has stated that at the time when allotment was to be made and possession was to be given to the respondent, the rate prevailing for allotment by HUDA was Rs.2400/- and hence the respondent is bound to deposit Rs.2400/- per square yard, before any allotment is made. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, appearing for the respondent, has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in ‘Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Ravinder Parkash’ Civil Revision No.6448 of 2006 decided on 11th January, 2007. It has been stated that brother of the respondent, who was similarly situated, also succeeded to allotment of the plot and in his case, this Court had ordered that HUDA cannot charge more than Rs.825/- per square yard. He has placed on record photocopy of the judgment rendered in Ravinder Parkash’s case (supra). I have perused the said judgment. No case law has been discussed in that judgment and no ratio of law has been laid. Rather, in that revision petition, the Court relied upon instance of allotment given to the respondent herein and had stated that both cannot be treated differently. The concluding portion of the decision rendered in Ravinder Parkash’s case (supra) reads as under: “Learned counsel for the respondent also placed on the file a letter issued by the petitioners to Kavinder Parkash on 20.4.2006, by which the rate charged by the petitioners from Kavinder Parkash was at the rate of Rs.825/- per sq. yard. This clearly shows that since the decree in favour of the respondent directed the petitioners to allot a plot to the respondent in accordance with the policy dated 18.3.1992, therefore, the price of the plot has also to be in accordance with the same policy dated 18.3.1992. Moreover, the petitioners have already charged the price of the plot from Kavinder Parkash at the same rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.825/- per sq. yard as per the policy dated 18.3.1992. Therefore, the 3 Civil Revision No. 4147 of 2006 petitioners are adopting double standards and act arbitrarily, which is not proper for them. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 8.4.2006 is upheld. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is dismissed.” Therefore, it cannot be held that the decision rendered by this Court in Ravinder Parkash’s case (supra) has determined the right of the parties. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that condition No.5 of the policy reproduced above states that the allottee is to pay the price as per the advertisement made by HUDA seeking applications for the allotment. In the present case, respondent who had applied for allotment of the plot under the oustee policy, relied upon the advertisement (Annexure R-5). The advertisement, for allotment of one kanal (420 square meter) plot, had fixed price of Rs.825/- per square yard. However, the same advertisement contained a proviso that the price fixed is tentative and the advertisement also contained terms and conditions of the allotment. Condition No.3 of the advertisement reads as under: “3. The price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable by the allottee to the Authority within 30 days.” Therefore, as per the advertisement, the price of Rs.825/- was not the final price. It was tentatively fixed, subject to the condition that the allotee shall pay the amount of enhancement awarded in the land acquisition proceedings. To this extent, order of the executing Court is modified that besides the price of Rs.825/- per square yard, the allottee shall also pay the amount paid by HUDA to the persons whose land was 4 Civil Revision No. 4147 of 2006 acquired in any land acquisition proceedings. Needless to say, the respondent will pay proportionately, accordingly to his share. With these observations, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 4, 2009 rps 5