Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2007 Date of Order: 25.08.2011 Friends, Sector-13 Plot Holder Society ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the revised demand notice dated 20.08.2004, Annexure P-1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial demand notice was set aside by a civil court by directing the respondents to re-calculate the enhanced amount. After re- calculating the amount, the respondents have served a notice dated 20.08.2004, calling upon the petitioners to pay additional price along with interest from 30.11.1991 and 14.08.1995. It is Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2007 -2- submitted that in similar controversy, though relating to another urban estate, similar notices have been quashed by an Hon'ble Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.5549 of 2002, titled as Jagat Narain and others v. HUDA and another, decided on 07.10.2003 and the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed. No one is present on behalf of the respondents. A perusal of the reply, filed by the respondents reveals that the controversy in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment in Jagat Narain and others (supra). An operative part of the judgment reads as follows:- “After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that the demand of interest as claimed by the respondents on the additional increased price vide demand notice (Annexure P-3) is not justified. Clause-9 of the allotment letter clearly stipulates that the allottees will be liable to pay the additional increased price of the plots within 30 days of its demand. Since the earlier demand made by the respondents in the year 1996 was quashed by this Court being illegal and arbitrary; and the respondents made fresh demand calling upon the petitioners to pay the additional increased price vide demand notice Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2007 -3- Annexure P-3, no interest can be charged from them on the plea that the fresh demand was in continuation of the earlier demand. Merely because while quashing the earlier demand the respondents were given liberty to charge the proportionate increase of the enhanced cost from the petitioners does not authorise them to charge the interest on the enhanced price from the back date. This Court vide order dated 10.7.2002 granted stay for recovery of the demanded enhanced price from the petitioners subject to the condition that they pay the price at the rate of Rs.179/- per square yards towards enhanced value of the plot. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondents are not entitled to charge interest from the petitioners on the additional increased price prior to the issuance of the demand Notice Annexure P-3. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this petition and quash the demand of interest made by the respondents vide demand notice dated 29.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) demanding the enhanced price from the petitioners at the rate of Rs.139.69 square yards w.e.f. 18.7.1996. However, we make it clear that the Civil Writ Petition No.12605 of 2007 -4- respondents are entitled to charge interest on the additional increased price to be calculated at the rate mentioned in the allotment letter after the expiry of one month period of the demand notice. The respondents shall calculate the amount of additional increased price and interest as indicated above and after adjusting the amount already paid by the petitioners as per the interim directions of this Court, refund or recover the amount accordingly within a period of three months.” The writ petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of the order and directions issued in Civil Writ Petition No.5549 of 2002. No order as to costs. August 25, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE