CWP No. 2435 of 2010. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 2435 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 11th February, 2010. M/s Luxmi Caste Forge Petitioner through Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 2435 to 2454 and 2456 to 2459 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 2435 of 2010. [2]. The petitioner is an Industrial Unit, to whom Plot No. D- 258, Phase VIII, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana has been allotted by respondent No. 2 – Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Limited [for short 'the Corporation']. The petitioner is aggrieved at the notice dated 5.10.2009 [Annexure P-12] whereby the Corporation has now asked it to pay the additional price @ Rs.249/- per square yard towards the allotment price of the afore- stated plot. The petitioner also seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondents to provide amenities such as Common Effluent Treatment Plant for Dyeing Industries, Hospital, Dispensaries, Police Station, Fire Station, Hotel and other basic amenities, the costs of which are said to have been already charged from the petitioner by CWP No. 2435 of 2010. ::-2-:: including in the allotment price of the plot @ Rs.600/- per square yard. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Corporation to compute the cost of development of the land and land etc. afresh for all categories of plot holders of Phase-VIII and distribute the same equitably amongst them and refund the amount allegedly recovered from it in excess. [3]. Pursuant to the State Industrial policy notified on 24.11.1992 [Annexure P-1], Phase VIII, Focal Point, Ludhiana was developed as an Industrial Estate by the Corporation. According to the petitioner total land measuring 774.62 acres was acquired for development of the afore-stated Industrial Estate, in relation to which the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 15.3.1994. The petitioner has averred that about 350-400 acres of the acquired land was sold at the rate of Rs.126/- per square yard as under- developed/undeveloped land to big industrial houses, about 100 acres of such land has been sold under “Off the Shelf Scheme” @ Rs.350/-. For the remaining land measuring about 300 acres, the Corporation invited applications from the general public and thereafter allotted the industrial plots to the applicants like the petitioner Company @ Rs.600/- per square yard. [4]. The allotment rate of Rs.600/- per square yard fixed by the Corporation came to be challenged by various allottees before this Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No. 19073 of 1996 [Jeewan Parbhat Jain V State of Punjab & Ors.], which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.12.1998 [Annexure P-7] whereby the decision of the Corporation to charge the tentative allotment price @ Rs.600/- per square yard CWP No. 2435 of 2010. ::-3-:: was struck down being discriminatory in nature and a direction was issued to the Corporation to re-calculate the enhancement in the tentative cost by taking into consideration the allotment made to various categories and charge the tentative cost after equitably distribution thereof from all the plot holders. In purported compliance of the said decision, the Corporation is stated to have reduced the tentative cost from Rs.600/- to Rs.596/- per square yard as was intimated to the allottees vide communications, like, Annexures P-8 and P-9. The aforesaid reduction in the tentative price was also not accepted by the allottees who have challenged the same and the matters are stated to be pending in this Court. [5]. The petitioner – allottee has now been served with a show cause/demand notice dated 5.10.2009 [Annexure P-12] issued by the Estate Officer of the Corporation whereby asking for payment of an additional price @ Rs.249/- per square yard as on 30.11.2009 “on account of enhancement of the land compensation”. The petitioner – allottee has been asked to pay a total sum of Rs.6,69,180/- towards the afore-stated additional price. [6]. The petitioner – allottee through the Association of allottees made a representation dated 20.11.2009 [Annexure P-13] in response to the show cause but there being no response thereto and the period within which the petitioner was asked to pay the additional price having meanwhile expired, the petitioner – allottee has approached this Court. [7]. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the impugned demand notice, it appears that the matter can be disposed of at this stage, without calling upon CWP No. 2435 of 2010. ::-4-:: the respondent Corporation. [8]. The right of the Corporation to recover the additional price on account of additional financial burden suffered by it due to enhancement in compensation for the acquired land, can not be questioned at all. At the same time, it is obligatory upon the respondent Corporation to consider the issues raised by the petitioner and/or the Association of Industrialists vide their representation [Annexure P-13] and redress their grievances by passing a speaking order. Suffice it to observe that mere stipulation in the impugned demand notice that the additional price @ Rs.249/- per square yard is being demanded “on account of enhancement of land compensation in view of the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana” is vague and evasive and it is imperative upon the Corporation to disclose the additional amount of compensation it is required to pay to the landowners and the proportionate distribution thereof amongst all the allotees on the principles laid down by this Court in Jeewan Parbhat Jain's case [supra]. Similarly, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that they have already been charged for the amenities which have not been provided yet, also requires to be responded by the Corporation. In my considered view, these factual issues need to be dealt with by the Corporation by way of a reasoned order, while raising demand the additional liability. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of at this stage with the following directions:- [i] respondent No.2 Corporation shall consider the objections raised by the petitioner or their Association and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as early CWP No. 2435 of 2010. ::-5-:: as possible and preferably within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced; [ii] the petitioner or other Industrialists shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard in a Representative capacity and if so required, they may be permitted to produce any material or proof in support of their claim that the demand raised by the Corporation towards enhanced price is excessive or is not in consequence with the decision in Jeewan Parbhat Jain's case [supra]; [iii] the final demand order to be passed by the Corporation shall explicitly disclose the total liability incurred by the Corporation and/or the method of proportionate distribution thereof amongst all the allottees; [iv] the issue regarding lack of the amenities for which the requisite cost is said to have been paid by the allottees shall also be specifically dealt with; [v] till the entire exercise noticed above is undertaken by the Corporation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the demand notice dated 5.10.2009 [Annexure P-12]; [vi] final order determining the petitioners' liability, if any, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of its passing. [9]. Disposed of. Dasti. February 11, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE