C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ---- Civil Writ Petition No. 2463 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.3.2010 M/s. Gian Chand Sushil Kumar Jain --- Petitioner Versus Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of five petitions bearing CWP Nos. 2463, 2475, 3352, 2531 and 2532 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 2463 of 2010. With a view to give impetus to industries in the State of Punjab, the Government of Punjab formulated a policy whereby various kinds of incentives were offered for establishment of new industries. A comprehensive procedure was also laid down for allotment of industrial plots. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 24.5.1993, published in “The Tribune”, the petitioner also applied for allotment of a plot and accordingly deposited the required earnest money. A draw of lots was held on 8.11.1996 whereby the petitioner was allotted an industrial plot measuring 3166.67 square yards, bearing No. D-337, Phase-VIII, Focal Point, C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 2 Ludhiana, by respondent No.2-Punjab Small Industries & Export Corporation Ltd. (for short “the Corporation”) vide allotment letter dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure P-1). It is further averred in the writ petition that in the advertisement dated 24.5.1993, whereby applications for allotment of industrial plots were invited by the Government of Punjab, the tentative price of the plots was fixed at Rs. 350/- per square yard. Besides, it was further stipulated that 10% extra price shall be levied for the preferential/corner plots. It was also averred that originally the plots were allotted 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 Court in a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No. 19073 of 1996 whereby the decision of the Corporation to charge the tentative allotment price at the rate of Rs.600/- per square yard being discriminatory in nature was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.12.1998 and a direction was issued to the respondent-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. The petitioner-allottee has now been served with a show cause/ demand notice dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) 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 submitted a representation to the respondents pointing out the defects in recalculation of the price dated 6.10.1999 and made a request to withdraw the demand notice dated 6.10.1999. Giving the background, the petitioner further averred in the petition that the land was acquired vide notification dated 7.5.1991, issued C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 3 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”). The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land in the following manner: 1 Naiee Chahi Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre 2 Khalas Chahi Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre 3 Gair Mumkin Rs. 2,25,000/- per acre 4 Banjar Kadim and Rosli Rs.1,20,000/- per acre On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, being sought by the landowners, the Reference Court determined the market value of all types of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 3,01,000/- per acre, vide award dated 27.10.1998. When the matter was brought to this Court by way of Regular First Appeal, the case was remanded back to the Reference Court for fresh determination of the market value in accordance with law. The Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, thereupon vide award dated 14.5.2008, re-determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,50,000/- per acre along with statutory benefits. It was on the basis of the aforesaid that the respondents demanded from the petitioner an additional amount of Rs. 249/- per square yard, vide notice, Annexure P-4, which the petitioner has now challenged in this writ petition on the grounds that the same is unjust, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 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 para 8 of the order recorded as under:- “8. The right of the Corporation to recover the additional price on account of additional financial burden suffered by it due to enhancement in C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 4 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 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 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 of the additional liability. Consequently, these writ petitions are disposed of at this stage with the following directions:- C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 5 (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 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.” C.W.P. No. 2463 of 2010 6 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. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 23, 2010 JUDGE RKMALIK