C.W.P. No.8726 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.8726 of 1987 Date of Decision:01.02.2010 Sudesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana through the Secretary Industries (Haryana) Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for quashing of the order issued by the 4th respondent demanding an additional amount of Rs.1,11,201.95/- to be paid towards the installments for the plot and warning the petitioner of proceedings of resumption if the amount was not paid. This is a sequel to a letter earlier issued by the Director of Industries, Haryana, Industrial Development Corporation stating that it had decided to revise the rate at Rs.110/- per square mtr. as indicated earlier. The ground of challenge is that no details had been given in the impugned notices as to how the amount demanded had been calculated and what was the basis for the increase in the rate of the plot, which had been allotted. 2. The contention in reply on behalf of the respondent was that there was a provision for an arbitration in the terms and conditions of allotment and for any dispute between the parties C.W.P. No.8726 of 1987 -2- and the same should have been resorted to by arbitration only. The writ petition shall not, therefore, be the appropriate remedy. An application had also been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in civil misc. No.1095 of 1988 for stay of proceedings but no orders had been passed in that application. After nearly 23 years, I do not think it necessary to refer the parties to arbitration. On the most substantial ground relating to tenability of making a claim for increase, it is contended that the petitioner had applied for an industrial plot in the Industrial Estate, Kundli developed by HSIIDC through an application dated 05.01.1984 measuring 7,000 square mtrs. Even at the time when the cost of plot was determined, it was stated to be purely tentative and the agreement entered into by the petitioner with HSIIDC on 12.03.1985 provided for a re-determination of price on proper assessment by technical committee. As per the tentative price fixed, the petitioner had paid Rs.1,11,760/- and a provisional letter of allotment had been issued in his favour on 26.02.1985 and when the rates in the industrial area have been revised by the HSIIDC Rs.110/- per square mtr, the same rates were incorporated in the letter of final allotment issued to the petitioner. 3. At the time when the matter is called, there is no party present on either side. I see from the records that at the time when the writ petition was brought on the urgent list for admission, the notice had been ordered and dispossession had been stayed. It was subsequently admitted on 11.08.1988 and the stay granted was made absolute. It appears that in the course of the proceedings, a learned Judge of this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 18.01.1990 C.W.P. No.8726 of 1987 -3- disposed of the application for issuance of completion-cum- occupation certificate and sewerage and water connection had also been given. The petitioner had agreed before the Court that the outstanding amounts shall be paid by the petitioner in six equated installments determined by the Corporation and on payment of the installments, the Corporation was bound to grant necessary facilities specified above. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has obtained all the benefits of allotment and has also been favoured with occupancy certificate and having further regard to the fact that the petitioner admitted to paying the amounts determined by the Corporation to be paid in six equated installments, I am of the view that no further adjudication is required to be done and the writ petition is required to be dismissed as having become infructuous. 5. The petitioner's challenge to the demand notices cannot survive any longer and if the amounts have not been paid, the respondents would be entitled to recover the same as per the terms of the contract. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. It shall be open to the petitioner to apply to the Court for any modification within the period of limitation, if factually the amounts demanded itself is shown to have been disputed subsequently and the offer to pay the amounts in six equated installments before this Court was an offer to any amounts less than what was demanded in the impugned notices. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 01, 2010 Pankaj*