Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 1992. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 1992. DECIDED ON : 12.8.2010 Avtar Krishan and another Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others Respondents Present:- Mr.Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.A.G.Haryana. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. PERMOD KOHLI,J. (ORAL) The petitioners were allotted a plot No. 193 in Sector 4, Mansa Devi Urban Complex on 27.11.1984, measuring 14 marla vide allotment letter No. 30422 dated 27.11.1984. 10% of the sale price was paid by the petitioners on 10.2.1984; another 15% on 7.6.1984; and balance amount of sale consideration was deposited by the petitioners on 1.10.1991. It is admitted case of the parties that under the letter of allotment, the petitioners were required to pay the annual instalments of Rs. 8,970/- which will fall due on 27/11 every year. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners did not pay the instalments regularly, though entire amount Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 1992. 2 has been paid in the above manner. The respondents raised a demand of Rs.45,973/-on account of interest on delayed payment after 31.3.1992. It is this demand notice which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 1. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioners failed to pay the instalments regularly, the respondents are entitled to charge interest. It is, however, admitted position that the possession was ultimately, offered and delivered to the petitioners on 24.10.1991. Prior to that, the petitioners who were required to pay instalments every year, did not pay the instalments for want of development of the sector. This controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court reported in Bhupinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1995 (2) PLR 275. This judgment relates to the same sector i.e. Sector 4, Mansa Devi, Urban Complex. On consideration of the question with regard to interest, this Court has held as under:- “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the respondents are not justified in raising the demand of payment of interest. Allotment letter Annexure P.2 contains terms and conditions of allotment of plot. Clause 6 of the tentative price of the plot can be paid in lump sum without interest within sixty days from the date of issue of the allotment letter or in 6 annual instalments. The first instalment will fall Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 1992. 3 due after the expiry of one year of the date of issue of this letter. Each instalment would be recoverable together with interest on the balance price at 10 per cent interest on the remaining amount. Interest shall, however, accrue from the date of offer of possession. Clause 7 of the allotment letter further provides that possession of the site will be offered on completion of the development work in the area. In view of interest with respect to the instalments due from the petitioner. The plot was allotted in the year 1984 i.e. almost 11 years have passed but the petitioner is still to get possession of the plot. Respondents, in their written statement, have admitted that the land in dispute has still not been developed and the encroachment on the plot is yet to be removed. It is the respondents who are using the money of the petitioner without any benefit being given to the petitioner in this regard. It is the respondents who have violated the terms and conditions of allotment letter. Under clause 6 of the allotment letter, interest would accrue only from t he date of offer of possession which in this case is still to be offered to the petitioner. Accordingly, demand of interest on delayed payment raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. Consequently, Annexures P.12, P.14 Civil Writ Petition No. 16163 of 1992. 4 and P.16 whereby demand of interest on delayed payment of instalments has been raised, shall stand quashed. This writ petition is allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.” Similar question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Shanti Devi 2005(9) S.C.C. 527. The Apex Court has held as under:- “ It must be remembered that the Appellants were to deliver possession within a reasonable time. They do not offer possession till 24th February, 1998. As they were not in a position to deliver possession they cannot expect parties like the Respondents i.e. allotees to keep on payment instalments to them. In such cases i.e. where Appellants are not in position to deliver possession they cannot charge interest on delayed payments till after they offer possession. Clause 6 of the letter of allotment also so provides. In view of the above legal position, the respondents are not entitled to charge any interest from the petitioners. The impugned notice demanding the outstanding amount is thus, quashed. 12.8.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Anoop JUDGE Note:- Whether to be reported ? Yes/No