RSA No.352 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.352 of 2005 Date of decision: 3.11.2008 Rulia Ram Gupta ......Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This second appeal is by plaintiff No.1 challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that the demand of additional price raised by the defendants is illegal and the plaintiffs are not bound to pay the same and also for a decree for permanent injunction as consequential relief restraining the defendants from realizing the alleged additional price from the plaintiffs or to resume the plots of the plaintiffs, has been dismissed. The defendant No.1 planned Sector 14 in the town of Karnal. The total area under the scheme was 85.35 acres was divided as follows:- i) Area under plots : 31.05 acres ii) Area under showrooms : 1.25 acres iii)Area reserved for govt. college : 20.00 acres iv)Area under roads and open space : 17.40 acres v) Area under shopping centre : 1.37 acres vi)Area under green belt : 9.57 acres vii)Area under Community Centre : 2.34 acres RSA No.352 of 2005 2 viii)Area under primary school : 1.75 acres ix)Area under public purposes : 0.73 acres The defendant-respondents advertised for sale, various residential plots carved out within the sector and invited applications thereafter. The plaintiffs are either allottees or purchasers of the plots from the original allottees. Clause 9 of their allotment letters runs as follows: “The above price of the plot is subject to variation with reference to the actual measurement of plot as well as in case of enhancement of compensation of acquisition cost of land in this sector by the Court or otherwise and you shall have to pay this additional price of the plot, if any, as determined by the department, within 30 days from the date of demand.” Complying with the letters of allotments the allottees/purchasers had made payments of the entire amount of consideration of their respective plots. Still when the defendants raised demand of additional amount of Rs.38.48 per sq.yard and issued notices upon the plaintiffs in March, 1990, the plaintiffs brought the present suit seeking a decree of declaration that the demand of the above additional price raised by the defendants vide impugned notice like Ex.P2 and Ex.D12 to Ex.27 was illegal, null and void. The suit was resisted by the defendants by pleading that the additional price vide impugned notices has been raised in view of the enhancement of the compensation of the land acquired for carving out the sector. They further pleaded that enhanced compensation has been spread on the entire area of the sector proportionately. They further pleaded that the area covered under government college, school, RSA No.352 of 2005 3 shopping centre has also been taken into account while spreading the enhanced compensation. They pleaded that the calculations have been made as per rules and the same were reflected in the notices. They denied that the impugned notices did not reflect the amount due from the allottees in terms of the enhancement. In the end it was pleaded that as per clause 9 of the allotment letters issued to various allottees the HUDA was within its right to issue such notices raising demand of additional price after the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act enhanced the price of the land acquired for carving out the sector. In the case in hand when the notices were issued in terms of the enhancement awarded by the authority under the Land Acquisition Act there is no illegality therein. The defendants also justified the rate of interest to be 15 percent per annum. After conclusion of the evidence of the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the plaintiffs by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2003. Feeling not satisfied, the plaintiff No.1 has filed the present appeal in this Court. Vide order dated 24.5.2005, this Court found that the appellant has no case on merits; however, notice of motion was issued observing that rate of interest being charged by the respondents is on the higher side. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has stated at the Bar that the interest is being charged from the appellant on account of payment of enhanced compensation at the same rate which is being paid to the land owners for the said enhancement. There is no dispute that vide impugned notices, the additional RSA No.352 of 2005 4 price which has been sought from the appellant is on account of enhanced compensation paid to the land owners. Therefore, in view of the above statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, it cannot be held that the rate of interest which is being charged from the appellant is on the higher side. In view thereof, I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. November 3, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE