R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2009 The Central Scientist Welfare Co-op Group Housing Society Ltd. (Regd.) ......Appellant Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.S.Grewal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “2. Sans un-essentials, the facts of this case are that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'the HUDA') was established by the Government of Haryana to provide better residential accommodation to the public in the Urban Area at concessional rates and therefore, HUDA launched a scheme for Group Housing Societies in 1983 but the same did not get good response from the public and, therefore, the HUDA has launched a fresh Group Housing Scheme in 1990 and main feature of the same was that developed sites would be allotted to the Societies on ' no profit no loss basis'. It was pleaded that the plaintiff society was allotted uneven sites whereas in the brochure it was mentioned that the developed sites will be allotted. The plaintiff society developed the site after spending huge amount and now they were feeling cheated as they are being burdened with unreasonable costs without any justification. The defendants allotted land to the group housing societies in Mansa Devi, Complex Sector-5, Panchkula @ Rs.892/- per sq. yard with a view to accommodate maximum number of employees in comparatively minimum area of land and the unsuccessful societies were allotted land in Sector 20, Panchkula and in this respect, applications were invited by the HUDA through newspaper. The plaintiff society R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 3 was formed by 20 members and it was allotted land measuring 2000 sq. meters at the rate of Rs.1206/- per sq. meters. It was case of the plaintiff society that the said land had been acquired by the HUDA from the land owners at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter and that price of allotment to the plaintiff society was 48 times of the amount actually paid by the HUDA to the land owners. The HUDA has paid near about 2.55 crores approximately to the land owners for 254.75 acres of land whereas they have charged price from the from the societies @ Rs.1206/- per sq. mtrs. and collected an amount of Rs.43.93 crores against allotment of only 91.07 acres of land out of 254.75 acres land. It was further the case of the plaintiff society that compensation payable to the land owners has been enhanced at the rate of only Rs.135/- per sq. mtrs. and on this account, the HUDA had to pay to the land owners an amount of Rs.13.76 crores approximately but the total amount paid by the societies alone to the HUDA has been worked out to be Rs.29.92 crores approximately for 91.07 acres land; that on mathematical calculations, it was found that the HUDA had paid Rs.16.31 crores for 254.75 acres land and was demanding Rs.73.85 crores from the group housing societies for 91.07 acres land. It was the case of the R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 4 plaintiff that the HUDA had already recovered excess amount from the group housing societies at the time of allotment; that the HUDA could bear the cost of enhancement from surplus fund lying deposited with it and that additional demand was illegal, null and void, abinitio, ultra vires unconstitutional, unjustified and was against the principles of natural justice, arbitrary and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff society. On failure of the defendants to withdraw the demand notice, the plaintiff society brought the present suit. 3. Defendants filed written statement and opposed the suit on law and facts questioning jurisdiction of the civil Court and disputing cause of action and locus standi in favour of the plaintiff society and pleaded concealment of facts; non-joinder of necessary parties and want of statutory notice. On merits, the defendants alleged that a fully developed site was allotted to the plaintiff society where all basic amenities were available; that the allotment letter was issued on 11.7.1995 in which it was clearly mentioned that the price was tentative and was subject to enhancement of cost of the land by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act and that the additional price was to be paid within 30 days of the demand. It was further alleged that the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 5 society had executed an agreement on 23.8.1994 prior to issuance of the regular allotment letter as well as the agreement between the parties. The defendants denied entire claim of the plaintiff society and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether the this Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Relief. ” R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 6 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. The facts in this case are not much in dispute. The plaintiff-society was allotted land in Sector 20, Panchkula for consideration of Rs.1,206/- per square meters vide allotment letter dated 11.71995. The land was acquired by the defendants for establishment of the residential sectors. The society was to work on 'no profit no loss' basis. However, after the enhancement of land acquisition compensation, the defendants worked out cost of enhancement to be recovered from the allottees. Clause 6 of the allotment letter, as reproduced by the learned Additional District Judge, in para 13 of the impugned judgment, reads as under:- “The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand” Thus, as per the said clause, the price fixed by the defendants was tentative and was subject to enhancement of cost of land by the competent authority. The society had agreed to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. Hence, the Courts below rightly held that it was not open to the plaintiff-society to challenge R.S.A.No. 2308 of 2009 (O&M) 7 the demand for additional price as arbitrary or unjustified. The defendants were legally entitled to ask for additional price from the society / its members on account of enhancement of land acquisition compensation. In the facts of the present case, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujarat and others 1995 Supp(2) SCC 182 and U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and another v. Friends Coop.Housing Society Ltd. And another 1995 Supp (3) SCC 456 fail to advance the case of the appellants as these are based on different facts. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 28, 2009 anita