IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 17.02.2009 K. C. Kaushik and others ...Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. J. C. Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R. D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioners were allotted MIG Flats in Sector-28, Faridabad by the Housing Board, Haryana between March to May, 1977. Their grievance is against the notices dated 01/05.02.1993, like Annexure P-3, whereby additional demand towards the cost of the allotted flats has been made from them on the ground that the compensation for the acquired land has been enhanced by the Courts which has already been deposited by the HUDA. C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 -2- Aggrieved at the aforesaid demand, it is contended that as per Clause 2 (w) of the Hire-Purchase Tenancy Agreement (Annexure P-2), no additional demand towards the price of the allotted flats could be made from them “after 7 years from the date of allotment”and that the details of the enhanced amount of compensation, if any, paid by HUDA or Board has not been conveyed to the petitioners and no interest is leviable on them. The petitioners are equally aggrieved at the orders like dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) purported to have been passed by the Housing Board in compliance to the directions dated 22.05.2006 issued by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P No. 10473 of 1993. The above-stated writ petition filed by the petitioners, was disposed of with a direction to the Estate Manager, Haryana Housing Board, Chandigarh to redetermine the liability of the petitioners, in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of “Jan Kalyan Simiti (Regd.) Panipat and others vs. Housing Board Haryana and others” 2003 (2) PLR 526. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. In my considered view, the first contention based upon Clause 2 (w) of the Hire-Purchase Agreement is no longer open or available to the petitioners as the same has already been extensively considered and repelled by this Court in Jan Kalyan's case (supra). Paras 7 to 10 of the aforesaid judgment C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 -3- are exclusively devoted to meet the said contention. Suffice it to state here that the impugned demand has not been raised by the Board as a result of its own acts, deeds and commission and is rather an outcome of the enhancement in compensation of the acquired land. Clause 2 (w) of the Hire-Purchase Agreement would not, thus, be attracted, as ruled by this Court. So far as the second contention, namely, the petitioner's entitlement for better particulars of the enhancement in compensation and its consequential apportionment amongst the allottees is concerned, the same merits consideration. It would be apposite to reproduce paragraph 2 of the notice dated 01/05.02.1993 (Annexure P-3) served upon the petitioners and which reads as follows : “2. The land compensation enhanced by the Hon'ble Court of this Sector has since been deposited in the Court by the HUDA for payment to the concerned parties and the same is demanded by the HUDA from Housing Board Haryana and the same is recoverable from you as per detail given below in respect of the above mentioned house. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. S.No. House No. Amount Corner Date of Middle House payment House -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. 1. 2229 to 2258 Rs.7698-00 Rs.7794-00 28.02.93 2. 2118 to 2228 Rs.6998-00 Rs.7086-00 28.02.93 3. 2259 to 2388 Rs.8211-00 Rs.8211-00 28.02.93 C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 -4- It may be seen that neither the details of the compensation determined by the Collector/ Reference Court nor of the further enhancement, if any, made by the Appellate Court(s) have been furnished. Similarly, no criteria for determining an allottee's liability has also been disclosed. Notwithstanding the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 22.05.2006 in C.W.P No. 10473 of 1993 to redetermine the petitioner's liability by passing a reasoned order, the petitioner's representation has been turned down vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2006, after observing as follows : “ After hearing and considering the arguments and contents of the representation it is demand raised by the Housing Board is justify and sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances. The terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement framed under the Haryana Housing Board (Allotment Management and Sale of Tenement) Regulations as amended from time to time are applicable on all the allottees concerned. The contention of the representation that the allottees were not taken into confidence also carries no weightage as the allottees cannot be associated for such associations. Hence, the demand raised by the Board is good and the allottees are suppressed to pay the enhancement of land compensation related to the land C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 -5- utilized for the construction of houses allotted to them as there is no other head of expenditure with the board to adjust and compensate this enhancement cost”. Suffice it to say that the above reproduced order is totally vague and evasive and lacks reasons and can be safely termed as cryptic or laconic order. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the order dated 13.10.2006 (Annexure P-6) or such other orders, if any, served upon the individual allottees are hereby set aside and the Estate Manager of the Housing Board is directed to pass afresh reasoned order in which the details of the enhancement of compensation for the acquired land and the criteria/method for determining an allottee's share towards such enhancement, shall also be explained. A reasoned order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is clarified that let one composite reasoned order be passed and copy thereof be sent to each allottee along with the details of the exact amount payable by such allottee. It is directed that in case the petitioners deposit the demanded amount within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, no interest for the period during which the writ petition remained pending shall be levied on them. C.W.P NO. 4636 OF 2007 -6- In view of the directions given herein above, the previous notices shall not be acted upon. It is also directed that those allottees who have already paid the enhanced amount should be permitted, if there is no other legal impediment, to transfer their flats or execute the conveyance deeds Disposed of. FEBRUARY 17, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE