IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 4395 of 2005 Date of Decision: 12.11.2010. Raj Rani and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana for respondents no.1 & 2. Mr. Raminder Gadhoke, Advocate for respondents no.3 & 4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) One S.C.F No. 47, Sector 9, Panchkula was allotted to the petitioners vide allotment letter dated 19.8.1986 for a consideration of Rs. 5,19,000/-. The petitioners had deposited 10% of the amount as earnest money. In terms of the allotment letter 15% of the amount was to be deposited within 90 days from the date of allotment letter and balance 75% in lump sum with interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter in 8 half yearly/annual installments with interest on the balance price at 10%. Interest was to accrue from the date of offer of possession. The letter also provided that the possession may be taken after making payment of balance 15% amount. Petitioners deposited 15% amount within the prescribed time and the balance amount of spreading over a period of 10 years. It is admitted case that the entire consideration was paid up to 10.9.1996. It is stated that petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 11,69,868/- as against the sale consideration of Rs. 5,19,000/- including CWP. No. 4395 of 2005 -2- interest. Petitioners claim to have made many representations for development works in the area including installation of parking lights etc. Petitioners were issued a show cause notice under Section 17 (4) of the H.U.D.A Act which was duly responded to. Some correspondence has been placed on record relating to non-development of area. Respondents, however, demanded balance amount from the petitioner. In some of the communications the petitioners asked for statement of accounts. Estate Officer, H.U.D.A, Panchkula vide order dated 19.12.2000 resumed the S.C.F allegedly for non-payment of the demand. It is claimed that an amount of Rs. 3,50,360/- is still due and payable. On resumption 10% of the consideration amount has been ordered to be forfeited. Aggrieved of the resumption order petitioners filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.3.2003 allowed the appeal and set aside the resumption order and directed the Estate Officer to calculate the outstanding dues considering the date of offer of possession as May, 1989. The petitioners were asked to deposit the entire outstanding dues within 15 days from the demand letter to be issued by the Estate Officer and on failure to comply the order of resumption will come into force. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order petitioner filed a revision before the Secretary & Financial Commissioner, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, the designated revisional authority. Revision of the petitioners also came to be dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2004. The entire case of the petitioners relates to charging of the interest @ 18% by the respondents. Petitioners in their memo of appeal and revision specifically pleaded for reduction of the rate of interest from 18% to 10% relying upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court and for various CWP. No. 4395 of 2005 -3- other reasons. However, neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority have considered or decided the question of interest which seems to have prompted the petitioners to file this petition. The sole dispute relates to the quantum of interest payable by the petitioners. The controversy regarding the quantum of interest chargeable by H.U.D.A has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Roochira Ceramics Vs. H.U.D.A and others reported as (2002) 9 SCC 599. In the above case Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a clear and categoric direction to charge interest @ 10% and to refund the excess amount of interest realized from the allottee. This judgement came to be passed in view of two judgements of the High Court passed in CWP No. 12975 of 1994 decided on 25.8.1996 and CWP No. 16487 of 1991. In the first referred judgement an S.L.P was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereas the later judgement has attained finality having not been challenged. Relying upon the Roochira Ceramics' case (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 16664 of 1992 decided on 27.4.2009 has observed as under:- “22. For the reasons aforestated the writ petitions are allowed in part; the impugned notices are hereby quashed and it is held that the petitioners are liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 1.6.1992. It is also held that since the period during which the petitioners were required to pay the due installments has already lapsed, the outstanding dues shall be cleared by them in lump-sum. The respondents are accordingly directed to re-calculate the outstanding dues and intimate the same to the petitioners by way of a notice. The petitioners shall be CWP. No. 4395 of 2005 -4- liable to pay the outstanding dues within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such notices, failing which the respondents shall be entitled to impose penalty as per Clause 8 of the allotment letters(s) or any other action as per law.” In the present case the appellate authority has found the petitioner liable to pay interest w.e.f. May, 1989 and thus the petitioners are liable to pay interest @ 10% with effect from the said date. Let the interest be calculated @ 10% till the amount was actually paid and the excess, if, any be refunded to the petitioners within a period of two months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 12.11.2010. lucky