RSA No.2998 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. RSA No.2998 of 2007 Ravinder Mohan ..... Appellant Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ..... Respondents 2. RSA No.3014 of 2007 Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ..... Appellants Versus Ravinder Mohan ..... Respondent Date of Decision: 11.08.2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondents (HUDA). KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) By this common order, RSA No.2998 of 2007 titled as Ravinder Mohan versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, preferred by the plaintiff allottee & RSA No.3014 of 2007 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and others versus Ravinder Mohan preferred by the HUDA defendant to the suit shall be decided together. Ravinder Mohan appellant in RSA No.2998 of 2007 was allotted booth No.178, Sector-17, Faridabad measuring 27 sq. yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,82,000/- vide allotment letter dated 3.3.1988. This allotment was in pursuance of auction held by the respondent – Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA'), Faridabad. 10% of the total sale consideration i.e. Rs.18,200/- was RSA No.2998 of 2007 -2- deposited by Ravinder allottee at the time of auction. Remaining amount of 15% of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.27,300/- was also deposited within a stipulated period of one month on 3.3.1988. The remaining amount of Rs.1,36,500/- was either to be deposited in lump sum without interest within a period of sixty days or in ten half yearly instalments along with simple interest @10% per annum. According to plaintiff, 25% of the amount of total sale consideration was paid to the defendant but the possession was not handed over to plaintiff. Basic amenities were not provided. However, plaintiff was given possession of the booth on 16.01.1990 and he raised construction on the said site. The grievance was made by the plaintiff that HUDA had permitted commercial activities to be carried from the residential area. Therefore, plaintiff incurred losses. However, he paid 50% amount of the site in question. He also shown the willingness to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration along with simple interest @10% per annum. Upon notices of the suit, respondent caused appearance and raised many preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, competence of the Civil Court to decide the same. On merits, it was stated that at the time when the resumption order was passed, plaintiff was under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.5,11,100/-. Against the resumption order, plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Replication was also filed by the plaintiff. After the pleadings had concluded various issues were drawn by the trial Court. Trial Court decided issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. What is material to be noticed is the following observation made by the trial Court:- RSA No.2998 of 2007 -3- "8...... In the instant case, 50% amount of the total sale consideration has already been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the remaining amount has also been deposited by the plaintiff by virtue of order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Ld. ADJ, Faridabad. Therefore, nothing is due againt the plaintiff. Undoubtedly, in accordance with the interim order dated 1.4.2002 passed by Ld. ADJ., Faridabad, the balance amount was given to the defendant @ 18% per annum, however, the defendant were only entitled to receive the balance amount of sale consideration @10% simple interest. Undoubtedly, in these circumstances, if the balance sale consideration has been in excess by the plaintiff, then the same is liable to be returned in accordance with law. In view of the discussions made above, it is quite clear that the plaintiff has succeeded to prove these issues in his favour, therefore, resumption order dated 29.1.98 and order dated 13.1.99 passed by the defendant No.2 are hereby declared as null and void and are not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant is hereby restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff in view of orders dated 29.1.98 and 13.1.99 and the defendant is also entitled to receive the balance sale consideration @10% simple interest per annum. If the excess amount is paid by the plaintiff, then in that eventuality, the defendant shall be under obligation to repay the same to the plaintiff @10% interest per annum. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants." Thus the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court holding that the resumption order dated 29.1.98 and 13.1.99 passed by defendant No.2 were wrong and against the facts. Defendants were held entitled to get simple interest @10% per annum and in case amount in excess was paid by the plaintiff, he was held entitled to refund @10%. Aggrieved against the same, defendant to the suit HUDA filed an RSA No.2998 of 2007 -4- appeal. The Lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal. While partly allowing the appeal, resumption order dated 29.1.98 and the order passed by the Appellate Court on 13.1.99 were set aside. However, the Court held that the HUDA defendant to the suit is at liberty to proceed afresh against the plaintiff in accordance with law. The Lower Appellate Court further held that instead of 10%, the rate payable by the plaintiff shall be 18% the simple interest. The judgment of the Lower Appellate Court has been assailed both by the plaintiff allottee and defendant HUDA. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. However, the matter could not be settled before the Lok Adalat as counsel for the HUDA stated that compromise is not possible. Today, Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate assisted by Estate Officer Mr. U.S. Kali Raman has stated that as per their calculation as on today, the amount due @18% up to 31.10.2011 is Rs.4,68,060/-. Counsel for the allottee has stated that he will deposit this amount before 31.10.2011. However, Sh. Bhatt has stated that even if this amount is deposited, this Court should take into consideration the fact that there was delay to make payment at the part of the plaintiff allottee and therefore this Court should uphold the resumption order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the auction was held in the year 1988. The plaintiff after constructing the booth is in possession of the same since 16.01.1990. Furthermore, during the pendency of the litigation due to various interim orders passed by the Courts, plaintiff has been paying the amount to the HUDA and the amount was accepted by the appellant. Those interim orders under the garb of which amount was paid RSA No.2998 of 2007 -5- were not assailed in any forum and the appellant accepted the amount without any protest. According to Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, as on today, plaintiff has paid Rs.4,04,094/- against the total price of the booth of Rs.1,82,000/-. Counsel further submit that in terms of the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, plaintiff allottee shall make entire payment @18% simple interest. Therefore, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, it will be just and appropriate if the outstanding amount of Rs.4,68,060/- is paid by the plaintiff allottee on or before 31.10.2011, it will bring an end to long drawn litigation which is being contested for last more than two decades especially when Courts have repeatedly held that resumption is a very harsh order. Therefore, the decree is modified to the extent, that in case, the outstanding amount of Rs.4,68,060/- which has been calculated up to 31.10.2011 by the appellant and includes the interest which has been calculated by the officials of HUDA as per their policy varying from 14% to 18% per annum is paid on or before 31.10.2011, the resumption order dated 29.1.98 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 13.01.99 shall stand quashed. In case, if the amount is not paid on or before 31.10.2011, the resumption order and the order passed by the Appellate Authority shall stand revived and HUDA will be within their rights to take possession of the premises. Both the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 11.08.2011 JUDGE manju