Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 Date of Order: 22.03.2011 Ram Lal (deceased) through his legal representatives. ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. A.G.,Haryana for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner (since deceased) represented through his legal representatives prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing order Annexures P-8 and P-9, passed by the Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana Rehabilitation Department and the Tehsildar (Sales)-cum-Managing Officer, Rohtak respectively and for issuance of a direction to respondents no.1 to 3 to refund Rs.32179 along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.1740/- deposited by the petitioner towards the price of the property and charges for registration of the conveyance deed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father and the petitioner, who are displaced persons from West Pakistan Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 -2- were allotted property no.746 and a portion of property no.747-B-VI at Rohtak. Later on an objection was raised that property no.746 could not be transferred to the petitioner/his father. The Assistant Settlement Commissioner held vide order dated 22.07.1960 that property no.746 cannot be transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision against this order. The Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 01.11.1960 held that as the land was in continuous possession of the petitioner's father, the allotment to his son is legal. It was , therefore, ordered that price of the property should be adjusted against compensation payable to the petitioner's father. Vide letter dated 06.03.1961, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Rohtak, asked the petitioner's father to deposit to Rs.1336.25 as the balance price of property no.746-747-VI, Rohtak but on a dispute raised by certain officials of the department the petitioner's father was made to deposit another sum of Rs.85.57 on 20.03.1961 and get adjusted verified claims of Rs.3305.25 and Rs.1250.68 on 07.06.1961. Despite receipt of the full and final price of the properties, the sale certificate was not issued and instead these properties were ordered to be auctioned. The petitioner filed a revision against the proposed auction. The revision, was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by directing the Tehsildar Sales to hold an enquiry as to the amount if any due from the petitioner. The Tehsildar Sales accordingly determined that an amount of Rs.1675/- is due from the petitioner. In the meanwhile, one Devi Dayal filed a complaint before the Revenue and Rehabilitation Minister, Haryana, about the transfer of the aforesaid plots to the petitioner and despite the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 -3- pointing out the correct facts, the Minister sent the file to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Haryana, who vide order dated 15.06.1988 directed the Tehsildar Sales to recover an amount of Rs.6935 from the petitioner. Vide order dated 24.06.1988, the Tehsildar Sales, Rohtak, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.6935/- as the balance sale price of the properties along with Rs.25244/- as interest within 15 days. The petitioner has deposited this amount under protest. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the price of plot stood settled in the year 1961, the respondents have no right, whether in law or in fact to demand any additional amount, any interest or registration charges. It is submitted that as the petitioner has already deposited the price as demanded and no default has been pointed out or determined, the demand of Rs.25244/- as interest is a unwarranted and should therefore, be set aside. It is further submitted that the demand of registration charges is illegal. Counsel for the respondents submits that upon consideration of the entire record, the Joint Secretary, found that the petitioner is required to pay Rs.6935/- as balance price of the property. The government, therefore, is well within its right to demand this amount with interest. It is argued that as the amount has already been paid by the petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. I have heard counsel for the parties, and perused the orders Annexures P-8 and P-9. As is apparent from these orders, a sum of Rs.6935/- along with interest was demanded, by the respondents as the price of the Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 -4- plot allotted to the petitioner. The respondents have also demanded Rs.1740/- as registration charges. The petitioner has failed to make out any case as to in what manner this demand is incorrect. The mere fact that the demand was raised after a number of years, is irrelevant as it was raised before execution of the conveyance deed. The respondents were therefore, entitled to demand the balance principal amount with interest. As regards the interest charged suffice is to state that it is neither penal nor onerous. The interest is merely 1% above bank rate and therefore, does not call for interference. The demand for registration charges, however, is illegal being contrary to the provisions of Rule 118 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 which reads as follows:- “118 Stamp duty to be paid by Government:- The stamp duty payable in respect of any document relating to the transfer of any property under these rules shall be payable by the Government. The petitioner is, therefore, not required to pay stamp duty on the conveyance deed issued to the petitioner in furtherance to the allotment made under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed but with a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.1740/- paid by the petitioner as registration Civil Writ Petition No. 10245 of 1988 -5- charges, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit. No order as to costs. March 22, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE