Regular Second Appeal No.4081 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-12.7.2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority ...Appellant Versus Rajpal son of Sher Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.D.R.Bansal, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The epitome of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that the plot in question, measuring 420 square meters, situated in Urban Estate, Jind, was allotted to Rajpal son of Sher Singh respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) by the Haryana Urban Development Authority appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as “the HUDA-defendant”). 2. According to the plaintiff, although the defendant did not provide the requisite amenities/facilities in the area, but still, he has paid all the instalments regularly and constructed the house over the plot in dispute, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter (Ex.P1) and the defendant's policy, but still the HUDA-defendant issued notice for recovery of penal interest. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that although the plot measuring 420 square meters was allotted to him, the price was fixed accordingly, the defendant never claimed that any excess area has been given nor any amount was demanded on that account, but now HUDA (defendant), vide letter dated 7.12.2000, has demanded the amount of excess area. An amount of Rs.1000/- was stated to have been wrongly charged on account of non-taking of DPC certificate, whereas the plaintiff has already taken Regular Second Appeal No.4081 of 2008 2 the same, vide letter dated 17.12.1989. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the plaintiff that although, no amount was due, but the defendant has illegally raised the demand of amount of excess area, penal interest and other charges without any basis. Thus, he challenged the action of the defendant and recovery of the amount by way of the present suit. 4. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of suit, jurisdiction of the civil Court, cause of action, concealment of facts etc. On merits, it was admitted that the plot in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff, vide allotment letter (Ex.P1). All the basic amenities were provided in the colony. According to the defendant, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, the plaintiff was liable to pay the remaining amount with interest. He has not constructed the house, as per the sanctioned site plan. It was pleaded that the defendant was well within its legal right to claim the impugned amount from the plaintiff. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2004. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was partly accepted by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.8.2007. 7. The appellant-defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court and filed the present appeal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record of the case with their valuable assistance and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in this appeal. 9. As is evident from the record, the Ist Appellate Court negatived the Regular Second Appeal No.4081 of 2008 3 remaining claim of the plaintiff and after examining the terms and conditions of the allotment letter/policy and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Roochira Ceramics v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others 2001 (2) P.L.R. 218 (SC), wherein, it was held that “HUDA is not entitled to charge interest at the rate of 18%” and the judgment of this Court in case Smt.Kanta Devi Budhiraja v. State of Haryana through the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana and others 2000 (2) P.L.R. 698 (P&H), wherein, it was ruled that “HUDA is not empowered to charge compound interest from the allottees in respect of period of default”, partly decreed the suit and has held as under:- “Partly accepting the appeal with costs and modifying the impugned judgment and decree, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs to the effect that interest on delayed payments of instalments is to be charged not from 9.4.1982 but from the date of offer of possession i.e. 1.9.1983. Interest at the rate of 10% is to be charged and not above it. Interest on the price of the additional land of the plot can be claimed by the defendants only from the date when actual measurement of the plot was done; it is the date of delivery of possession to the plaintiff. Thus, interest on any such delayed payment is to be charged not from 1.9.1983 but from 15.5.1989. Even interest on enhanced price of excess area of 61.25 Sq. meters is to be charged from 15.5.1989. Similarly, extension fee for non- construction of the plot is to be charged from the date of offer of possession and not from 1981.” 10. Meaning thereby, the Ist Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record viz-a-viz the terms and conditions of allotment agreement in correct perspective, in this relevant connection. No other legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, so as to take a contrary view than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Ist Appellate Court. Regular Second Appeal No.4081 of 2008 4 11. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court, which are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 12.7.2010 Judge AS