CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3747 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.3.2010 M/s Foremost Auto Industries ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 19 petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3747, 3751, 3752, 3773 to 3775, 3778 to 3780, 3791, 3807, 3809, 3811, 3812, 3814, 3816, 3818, 3820 and 3822 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 3747 of 2010. The petitioner is an Industrial Unit, to whom plot No. E-695, Phase-VIII, Focal Point, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana has been allotted by respondent No.2-Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (for short “the Corporation”). The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-12) whereby the Corporation has now asked it to pay the additional price at the rate of Rs.249/- per square yard towards the allotment price of the afore-stated plot. The petitioner also CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -2- 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 including in the allotment price of the plot at the rate of 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. Pursuant to the State Industrial Policy dated 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 aforesaid 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 underdeveloped/undeveloped land to big industrial houses, about 100 acres of such land has been sold under “Off the Shelf Scheme” at the rate of 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 at the rate of Rs.600/- per square yard. The allotment rate of Rs.600/- per square yard fixed by the Corporation came to be challenged by various allottees before this CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -3- Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No. 19073 of 1996 “Jeewan Parbhat Jain v. State of Punjab and others”, 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 at the rate of Rs.600/- per square yard 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, Annexure 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. The petitioner-allottee has now been served with a show cause/ demand notice dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure P-12) issued by the Estate Officer of the Corporation asking for payment of an additional price at the rate of 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.2,47,444/- towards the afore-stated additional price. The petitioner-allottee through the Association of allottees made a representation dated 20.11.2009 (Annexure P-13) in response to the show cause notice but there being no response thereto and the CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -4- period within which the petitioner was asked to pay the additional price having meanwhile expired, the petitioner-allottee has approached this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record with his assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue involved in these writ petitions is fully covered by the decision dated 11.2.2010 rendered in CWP No. 2435 of 2010 (M/s Luxmi Cast Forge v. State of Punjab and others), whereby this Court while disposing of a bunch of 24 similar writ petitions had in paras 7 and 8 of the order recorded as under:- “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 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, cannot 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 CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -5- 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 amonst all the allottees 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 CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -6- Association and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order as early 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 CWP No. 3747 of 2010 -7- 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.” In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms as CWP No. 2435 of 2010 titled as M/s Luxmi Cast Forge v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 11.2.2010. March 8, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE