LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.02.2011 1. LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) Dharam Singh and others ...Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 2. LPA No. 937 of 2009 (O&M) Sewa Singh and others ..Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. 3. LPA No. 938 of 2009 (O&M) Ram Kishan and others ..Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the appellants in all the appeals. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondent-State of Punjab in all the appeals. Mr. B.S.Sudan, Advocate for Dr. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the respondent No.2 in all the appeals. **** LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [2] RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) CM No. 848 of 2011 Heard. Affidavit of respondent No.1 is taken on record and CM disposed of. CM No. 850 of 2011 Heard. Documents enclosed with the application are taken on record and CM disposed of. LPA Nos. 936 of 2009, 937 of 2009 & 938 of 2009 All the appeals being directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.03.2009 are being disposed of by the present order. The facts, in brief, may be noticed at the out set. The appellants were allotted plots for the commercial use by the Punjab Agriculture Marketing Board in a Grain Market which was to come up at Jaito, District Faridkot. The allotments were made by way of public auction. According to the terms of the allotment letter, 25% of the price was to be deposited on the spot and the remaining 75% within one month without any interest or in installments within a period of six months along with 6% interest per annum. A dispute appears to have cropped up with regard to the availability of basic infrastructure in the Grain Market and the state of preparedness of the infrastructure to make the market operational. The petitioners who did not pay any further amount apart from the initial deposit approached this Court by means of the writ petitions out of which the appeals have arisen seeking a direction to the respondents to start the developmental work in the proposed Grain Market. The aforesaid LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [3] approach to this Court was made in the year 1992-93. The Marketing Board in its affidavit filed in the case way back in the year 1993 asserted that necessary infrastructure has been provided notwithstanding which the petitioners have defaulted in payment of the dues. In the year 2001 when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration, an order was passed directing the District Judge, Ferozepur to submit a report with regard to the stage of the developmental works in the Grain Market and also on the allegations of encroachment on the site. The learned District Judge submitted his report on 01.12.2001 which would indicate that though some developmental works had been undertaken, some remaining works were left to be done and, further more, that there were some encroachments on the site. Thereafter, it appears that the Secretary of the Marketing Board had filed a further affidavit before the Court on 01.11.2007 stating that the developmental works in the market had been completed and encroachments by and large have been removed. On the basis of the aforesaid material on record, the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petitions, by the impugned order dated 17.03.2009, took the view that it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to make the site free from all encumbrances and encroachments and also to provide basic amenities at the site. The learned Single Judge also recorded the view that the respondents had not made any sincere efforts in this regard. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:- LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [4] “(i) The respondents are directed to remove the encroachments and complete the development works,if the same are still lying incomplete within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. (ii) The petitioners shall, meanwhile, if they want to retain the plots, make the payment of at least half of the due installments along with interest before 30.06.2009. The balance payment shall be made by the petitioners within one month on completion of development works and removal of the encroachments. The respondents shall not be entitled to charge any interest from the petitioners for the six months' period only which is being granted to them to complete or remove the encroachments and/or to complete the development works. (iii) There shall, however, be given an option to the petitioners to enable them to surrender the plots, if they so want, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in that event, the amount deposited so far shall be refunded to them along with interest @ 10%.” The only grievance of the appellants in the present appeals is with regard to the order of the learned Single Judge contained in the second direction i.e. with regard to the payment of interest on the balance amount of the outstanding dues. The appellants have contended that the order for payment of such interest from the year 1992 in such a situation where necessary infrastructure was not available is harsh and unjustified. Nevertheless, the said directions appears to have been complied with by the appellants who have filed different Civil Miscellaneous Applications in each of the appeals giving details of the payments made. LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [5] Learned counsel for the Marketing Board has referred to the terms of the allotment order which contemplates payment of interest if the balance payment is to be made beyond the initial period of one month which alone was interest free. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to the payment of interest is fully justified and will require no interference by this Court. The finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to the duties of the respondents to make the site free from all encumbrances and encroachments and also to provide basic amenities to make the market operational, had already been noticed. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the respondents had not made any sincere efforts in this regard. No appeal or challenge against the said finding(s) of the learned Single Judge has been made by any of the respondents. In such a situation the Court will have to proceed on the basis that the respondents including the Marketing Board do not dispute the duties cast on them by the order of the learned Single Judge to provide the basic amenities in the site and the lack of sincere efforts on their part in this regard. If the said findings are to be co- related to the report of the learned District Judge dated 01.12.2001; the additional affidavit of the Secretary of the Marketing Board dated 01.11.2007 and the report of the Court appointed Commissioner, the position which emerges is that the Grain Market even today is not ready for operations. This is clearly evident from the conclusions of the Court appointed Commissioner as well as the photographic description of the different sites of the market that is available on LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [6] record. If the aforesaid is the correct position on facts it is difficult to say as to how the appellants can be saddled with the responsibility or the liability to pay interest since the year 1992 on the entire amount of the outstanding dues. The appellants claim that they have paid 50% of the outstanding dues along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the year 1992. The aforesaid claim of payment will naturally be subject to the verification by the Marketing Board. However, taking into account the totality of the facts of the case as discussed above, particularly the duties and obligations of the respondents as found by the learned Single Judge which have gone unchallenged and the report of the Court appointed Commissioner, we are of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the appellants are made liable to pay interest at the agreed rate of 6% per annum from the year 1992 on 50% of the outstanding dues. We, therefore, modify the second direction of the learned Single Judge accordingly and dispose of all these appeals in terms of the aforesaid modification. In the event any of the appellants have not deposited 50% of the outstanding dues along with interest thereon, they may do so within two weeks from today in which event the order passed by us today will govern such of the appellants also. As according to the Marketing Board, the remaining developmental works and removal of encroachments have been made in the meantime, orders should be passed by this Court with regard to the time frame within which the balance 50% of the outstanding amount (without interest) has to be paid by the appellants. As the LPA No. 936 of 2009 (O&M) [7] aforesaid claim of the Marketing Board with regard to the completion of the remaining developmental works and removal of the encroachments has not been disputed, we direct the appellants to deposit the balance amount (without interest) within a period of three months from today failing which the Marketing Board will be at liberty to take such action against the appellants as may be warranted in law. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 22.02.2011 'ravinder'