Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9367 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.11.2008 World Renewal Spiritual Trust through its Branch Manager, Brahma Kumar Amir Chand. ....Petitioner. Versus Union Territory, Chandgarh and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present: Mr.Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of order dated July 18, 2007 (Annexure P-15) vide which the Letter of Intent issued to the petitioner in respect of allotment of additional land on lease hold basis was withdrawn as the petitioner had failed to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Trust was allotted site measuring 1494.56 sq. yds in Sector 33-A, Chandigarh, at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. yd for construction of Trust centre on leasehold basis for 99 years vide Letter of Intent dated 25.1.1983. The construction thereon was raised by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 3.12.1984, the petitioner-Trust requested the respondent authorities for allotment of adjoining plot of Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [2] approximately 2000 sq. yds on the ground that as the activities of the Trust were expanding rapidly, therefore accommodation available with them was insufficient. Accordingly, vide Letter of Intent dated 27.1.1986, the petitioner trust was allotted additional land measuring 5 kanal, adjacent to the existing site of the petitioner trust, at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq. yds on leasehold basis for 99 years. It was specified in the said Letter of intent that in addition to the premium of land, ground rent at the usual rising scales shall also be chargeable. It was also a condition in the Letter of Intent that allotment shall be made on payment of 25% premium of the site. Though in the Letter of Intent dated 27.1.1986 the petitioner -Trust was allotted additional 5 kanals of land, but the Superintending Engineer Construction Circle had given area of the said site as 2113.333 sq.yds. Accordingly vide Letter of Intent dated 19.2.1990, additional land measuring 2113.333 sq.yds (4.23 kanals) was allotted to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.130/- per sq.yds on lease-hold basis for 99 years. In that letter it was mentioned that amount of Rs.81500/- already paid by the petitioner shall stand adjusted towards 25% of the total premium of land. In the meantime, petitioner submitted yet another request vide letter dated 14.10.1993 for allotment of additional 25 feet wide strip of land. On the basis of the recommendations of the Screening Committee, the petitioner was allotted additional land measuring 501.92 sq. yds at the rate of Rs. 5800/- per sq. yd vide letter dated 24.4.2000. In that letter, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.7,27,784/- to cover 25% tentative premium along with an undertaking on Non Judicial Stamp Paper within 30 days from the Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [3] date of issuance of the said letter. It is clearly mentioned therein that allotment letter would be issued on receipt of 25% earnest money along with the requisite undertaking. The petitioner did not deposit the amount of Rs.7,27,784/- (as 25% earnest money) within 30 days from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent dated 24.4.2000 which was a specific condition laid down in the letter of intent for issuance of allotment letter. Instead of depositing 25% of the premium, the petitioner vide letter dated 19.7.2000, again requested the authorities to charge rate of land @ of Rs.130/- per sq. yard instead of Rs.5800/- per sq.yds. The request of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 4.1.2001(Annexure P-10) and petitioner was asked to deposit the price of the additional land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh, against order dated January 4, 2001, which was not accepted and the petitioner was, accordingly, informed vide letter dated 6.11.2001 (Annexure P-13). Aggrieved by the order of appellate authority, the petitioner filed CWP No. 1440 of 2002 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.1.2002, which reads as under: “After arguing at length, in view of the fact that allotment of additional land would be subject matter of an independent transaction, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue such remedy as admissible in accordance with law for settlement of the price for allotment of Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [4] additional land. Leave and liberty granted. The writ petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn.” The petitioner submitted representations to the authorities for consideration of his claim but vide impugned order dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure P-15), the Letter of Intent issued to the petitioner in respect of allotment of additional land on lease hold basis was withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period, which is a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that initially the plot was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1986 and possession thereof was also handed over but due to some mistake at the level of the respondents, the amended allotment letter was issued for land measuring 4.23 kanals. In the amended letter of allotment, the price of additional land at the rate of Rs.5800/- per sq. yd. was more than the initial rate of Rs.130/- per sq. yd. The mistake was not on the part of the petitioner but it was on the part of the respondents only. Mr. Mittal argued that the petitioner was neither given any opportunity of hearing nor any speaking order was passed and the letter of allotment was withdrawn in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Mittal further argued that the impugned order has been passed without mentioning any reason and without any justification and, moreover, the petitioner was subsequently ready to deposit the amount even at the rate of Rs..5800/- per sq. yard and a draft was also prepared Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [5] which was not accepted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in M.D.,HSIDC and others Vs M/S Hari Om Enterprises and another JT 2008 (8) SC 184 that the petitioner is ready to deposit current price of the land in dispute and states that the delay was due to the action of the respondents only as the petitioner was entitled to deposit the price of the plot at the rate of Rs.130/- per square yard, whereas the respondents were insisting the price of the additional land at the rate of Rs.5800/- per.sq.yard. As an opportunity was also given to the petitioner to deposit the price of the plot at the rate of Rs.5800/- per sq. yards, but the same was not deposited as the additional land was a part and parcel of the plot initially allotted to the Trust. A short reply has been filed by the respondents which is on record. Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has argued that only a Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner and no letter of allotment was issued. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to deposit the amount but in spite of granting various opportunities, the amount of even 25% which was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of Letter of Intent, was not deposited. It is clearly mentioned in the Letter of Intent that in the event of default of breach or non compliance of any of the conditions of lease, the land would be cancelled and the site in dispute resumed. Since the petitioner had failed to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period of 30 days, the Letter of Intent issued to the petitioner was withdrawn Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [6] as per terms and conditions of Letter of Intent. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for parties and have perused writ records. It is an admitted case that petitioner has not deposited 25% of the earnest money within the stipulated period of 30 days and the withdrawal of Letter of Intent was as per terms and conditions mentioned therein. The relevant portion of the terms and conditions of Letter of Intent is reproduced as under: “.............In the event of default, breach or non- compliance of any of the conditions of lease, the lease may be cancelled and the site resumed and the whole/part amount paid to the Government towards the premium/rent of the site may be forfeited to Govt.........” It is clear from the documents on record that various opportunities were granted to the petitioner to deposit the said amount but, in spite of that, the amount was not deposited. The balance amount was to be deposited after issuance of allotment letter as only the Letter of Intent was issued and the allotment letter was to be issued on deposit of 25% of the premium. The petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions laid down in Letter of Intent dated 24.4.2000 and the same was withdrawn on account of failure on the part of the petitioner -trust to deposit 25% of the premium within the stipulated period. The petitioner-trust did not deposit the amount on the ground that the additional land was a part and parcel of the plot already allotted to the trust and due to mistake on the part of the respondents, that land was not allotted and the amount was deposited of the land which was Civil Writ Petition 9367 of 2008 [7] not disputed. When this mistake came to the notice, the petitioner immediately submitted application and requested to allot additional land on the same rate and the respondents considered this land as additional land and not part and parcel of the previous plot already allotted to the trust. The dispute is whether the land in dispute is a part and parcel of the initial plot allotted to the petitioner-trust or it was an additional land. Since the land is a part of that plot only which was allotted to the petitioner-trust but the same could not be allotted as the same was not found in record and this mistake came to the notice of the authorities later. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be genuine as land in dispute is adjacent to the land already allotted to the trust and, initially also, it was a part and parcel of the same plot which was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to deposit current price of the plot in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in M.D.,HSIDC's case (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioner-trust in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the afore-cited judgment if the petitioner-trust is ready to deposit the current price of the land in dispute along with interest and penal interest. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE 4.11.2008. raghav