Civil Writ Petition No.4117 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4117 of 1986 Date of Decision: 14.07.2010 Mr. Nand Kishor ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Harshit Jain, Advocate for Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.2. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J.(ORAL) Jind Improvement Trust formulated a scheme for allotment of the residential plots on reserved price. One of the Scheme Nos.5 was notified. One Plot No.368 measuring 250 Square Yards was allotted to one Neeraj Kumar Gupta son of Jagdish Parshad Gupta, a minor. The rate fixed for the plot was Rs.40/- per square yard. An agreement for the sale of the plot was also executed at the fixed price and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the allottee to the Improvement Trust. It is stated that originally the plot was purchased by Jagdish Parshad, father of minor Neeraj Kumar. Thereafter, in the year 1981, the plot was transferred by Jagdish Parshad Civil Writ Petition No.4117 of 1986 -2- to his minor son Neeraj Kumar. Neeraj Kumar (minor) transferred the plot to the petitioner after seeking the permission from the Court under Section 8, sub Section 2 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 through his guardian at a price of Rs.30,000/-. The original allottee namely Jagdish Parshad Gupta made an application dated 22.11.1985 (Annexure P-1) to the Administrator, Municipality, Jind regarding the transfer of the ownership of the plot in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the plot was transferred in the name of petitioner, vide order dated 18.12.1985 as is evident from Annexure P-2. On such transfer, effected by the Administrator, Municipality, Jind, the petitioner became the owner in possession of the plot. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 01.07.1986 (Annexure P-3) demanding an amount of Rs.15,000/- as the enhanced price of the plot on the ground that the Trust has re-considered the reserve price of the plots on account of enhancement of the rates of compensation. It is this order which is under challenging in the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 in its detailed reply admitted the sequence of the event i.e. the allotment of the plot in the name of Jagdish Parshad, its transfer in the name of his minor son and then finally the transfer in the name of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner did not execute the agreement despite notices. The only ground for enhancement of the price is the enhancement of compensation by the Tribunal in respect to the land acquired for establishing the residential colony. It is further stated that the price was fixed on "no profit no loss" basis and since the cost of the land has been increased price has been enhanced. It is admitted case of the parties that the plot was allotted to the allottee on a fixed price. The plot has been transferred twice, firstly in the name of son of the original allottee and thereafter in favour of the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.4117 of 1986 -3- During all these transfers, the respondents never reserved any right to ask for enhancement of the price of the plot. Even the scheme whereunder the plot has been allotted, has not been placed on record to indicate that the scheme itself envisaged that the amount shall be increased in the event the price of the land is enhanced. Mr. Hooda has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Avtar Singh Versus State of Haryana,1990(2) P.L.R. 1. In this case, Full Bench of this Court had upheld the enhancement of the price by the Improvement Trust in respect to the residential plots allotted/sold by the Improvement Trust. However, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from the factual background indicated hereinabove. In the said case, the Improvement Trust while issuing the public notice had indicated that the price of the land is tentative and is subject to revision and enhancement at any time due to enhancement of compensation, interest and the cost allowed or awarded by any of Appellate Court or for any other reasons. Apart from above, a stipulation in the public notice even in the allotment letter, it was mentioned that the price is tentative price and is subject to revision. In the present case, no such material has been placed on record to show that the price fixed by the Improvement Trust was tentative and the Trust had reserved any right to enhance the same at any later stage. Even the allotment, letter has not been placed on record by the respondents. It is also admitted position that the plot was transferred twice by the Improvement Trust without any reservation. Under these circumstances, the sales having been concluded and transfer effected twice without any rider or reservation to enhance the price, respondent-Trust/Municipality is not entitled to seek enhancement of the price. Civil Writ Petition No.4117 of 1986 -4- Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 01.07.1986 (Annexure P-3) is hereby quashed. No Costs. 14.07.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE