C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 DECIDED ON : 01.05.2009 M/S Amar Sin gh Pritam Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 03.10.2000 and 19.01.2001 passed by the Haryana State Agricultural Board/Market Committee, whereby resumption of Plot No.1 in the New Grain Market, Taraori allotted in favour of the petitioner-firm, has been conditionally set aside subject to payment of the compound and penal interest on the balance sale consideration. The petitioner's grievance is that since possession of the subject plot was not offered to it, no penal or compound interest was leviable. The petitioner's second grievance is that the respondents have already exempted the similarly situated allottees from payment of compound and penal interest, therefore, also the petitioner cannot be discriminated. C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -2- Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit which reveals that the petitioner has repeatedly defaulted in payment of the instalments and as such, it was asked to pay the penal and compound interest , as per the agreed terms and conditions of allotment. The counter-affidavit further reveals that the petitioner has already sold the subject plot to one Jaswant Singh in an unauthorized manner. On April 22, 2002, this Court passed the following order : “ Counsel for the petitioner says that the entire amount so demanded with compound and penal interest would be paid by the petitioner within one month from today. Dispossession stayed. However, if the requisite amount, as mentioned above, is not paid within the stipulated period, stay shall automatically stand vacated.” In deference thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire amount demanded by the respondents along with compound and penal interest, has already been deposited by the petitioner. C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -3- The only question requires to be determined is as to whether or not the petitioner is liable to be levied the penal and compound interest on the delayed payments ? The parties are governed by the terms and conditions of allotment as contained in the allotment letter dated 10.11.1988 (Annexure P-1). It stipulates as follows : “5. The sum of Rs.17000/- paid by you as earnest money has been adjusted in your plot account. You are requested to remit of sum of Rs.53400/- on account of 75% balance-sale of price either within 30 days of receipt of this allotment letter without interest or in six half yearly instalments together within interest @ 12.5% per annum accruing from the date of issue of this letter as mentioned hereunder : -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-. No. of Due date Amount of Total Remarks Instal- of Instal- Instalment ments ments @12.5% -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Cost 1/8th Rs.17000-00 to be deposited by 30.11.88 Ist 08.08.89 8900 3357.560 12257.50 2nd 08.11.89 8900 2781.25 11681.25 3rd 08.08.90 8900 2228.00 11128.00 4th 08.11.90 8900 1660.75 11560.75 5th 08.11.91 8900 556.25 9456.25 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -4- 6. In case of failure to deposit the instalment (s) by 10th of the month due he shall be charged compound interest @ 12.5% along with penal interest @ 4% per annum with instalment. There is no pre-condition in the allotment letter that the penal or compound interest would be leviable only if the possession is offered to the petitioner. In a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 2006 decided on March 17, 2009 titled as, “U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others”, their lordships have ruled as follows : “ We asked the learned counsel for the parties to tell us which is the obligation of the lessor in the lease deed which says that they will not charge interest on the installments before providing the amenities. There is neither any condition in the lease nor any obligation under the auction, if the parties have given their bids and with their eyes wide open, they have to blame themselves. It cannot be enforced by any mandamus as there is no obligation contained in the lease deed or in the auction-notice”. C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -5- Therefore, it is evident that a lessee/successful bidder cannot seek rescheduling of the installments of premium or postponement of accrual of the interest payable as per rules. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Shri Bhandare that equity would not demand charging of interest, even though the plots are yet to be fully developed. When parties enter into contract, they are to abide by the terms and conditions of the same, unless the same be inequitable. In the present case, question of equity does not really arise in as much as the condition relating to interest is founded on a statutory rule, vires of which has not been challenged” (emphasis added) If interest could not be denied to the state government even when there was an assurance of all “modern amenities”. It is needless to say that the claim of the government will be much more stronger, when there is no assurance at all, as in this case”. In this view of the matter, there can be no escape but to hold that the petitioner having defaulted in payment of due instalments as per the agreed Schedule, the respondents have C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2001 -6- rightly held it liable to pay penal and compound interest as per the agreed terms and conditions of the allotment and no direction for the refund thereof can be issued. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the said amount in terms of undertaking given before this Court on April 22, 2002, the resumption order passed against it, is hereby quashed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. MAY 01, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE