Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1133 (PNJ)

Hardev Singh v. Housing Board Haryana

2009-07-13

JASBIR SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT JASBIR SINGH, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash order dated 01.01.2003 (P-5), challenging right of respondent No.1 to claim interest @ 15% (compounded quarterly). Further challenge is to the order dated 16.06.2006 (P-10) dismissing prayer made by the petitioners to charge simple interest, on payment due, towards price of the plots purchased by them. 2. Plots bearing Nos.1092 and 1093 were allotted in favour of Jagir Chand and Pritam Kaur respectively, for a tentative price of Rs.2,96,300/-each on 27.08.1992 (P-2). 25% of the amount was to be paid at the time of allotment and balance was payable in 13 monthly installments of Rs.3,325/-each. 3. Admittedly, plots in question were purchased by the petitioners from the original allottees mentioned above on 03.09.2004 and 14.05.2004 respectively. It is necessary to note here that earlier also, by raising similar grievance which is being raised in this writ petition, the petitioners came to this Court by filing CWP No.1933 of 2005 which was disposed of on 30.01.2006, directing the petitioners to approach the respondents, the respondents were also directed to provide the petitioners details regarding the amount to be recovered from them. In consequent thereto, order dated 16.06.2006 (P-10) was passed declining prayer of the petitioners to charge simple interest and further not to charge any interest on the enhanced price of the plots. Their claim towards refund of an amount of Rs.8,200/-was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein claim of the petitioners has been refuted by stating that the interest was being claimed, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It was further stated that the original allottees had never laid challenge to the conditions in the allotment letter. In such a situation, it is not open to the appellants, who are subsequent purchasers, to raise objection against any condition incorporated in the contract agreement. It was prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition bound to fail. Record reveals that vide letter dated 27.08.1992 (P-2), tentative price of the plot was intimated to the original allottee Jagir Chand. It was prayed that writ petition be dismissed. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition bound to fail. Record reveals that vide letter dated 27.08.1992 (P-2), tentative price of the plot was intimated to the original allottee Jagir Chand. In that letter, it was mentioned that after making payment of 25% of the amount, towards sale consideration, rest of the amount along with interest shall be paid in 13 monthly installments of Rs.3,325/-each. 6. Counsel for the respondents, by making reference to document Annexure P-2, states that when total amount of price including interest was calculated, the interest was added @ 15% per annum (compounded quarterly). Once the original allottees had never laid challenge to the terms and conditions of allotment letter, demanding installments @ Rs.3,325/-each for 13 months, it does not lie in the mouth of the subsequent purchasers to lay challenge to those terms and conditions. In their reply, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have stated as under: - “That the petitioners have challenged in this writ petition the rate of interest on the ELC, which the answering respondent had charged from the original allottees. The Houses in question i.e. House No.1093 has been originally allotted to Pritam Kaur on 17.07.1992 and House No.1092 was allotted to Shri Jagir Chand son of Shri Sunder Ram on 27.08.1992 and on the request of original allottees these houses were transferred on 03.09.2004 and 14.05.2004 respectively in the names of the petitioners. The answering respondent issued letter dated 30.11.1994 vide which the demand of 1st Enhanced Land Compensation of Rs.49743/-@ 331.62/-per sq. yd. was raised. Thereafter vide letter dated 12.01.1996 the demand of 2nd Enhanced Land Compensation of Rs.61568/-@ 410.45 per sq. yd. was raised. In this letter the original allottee was given time to pay the enhanced land compensation without interest within 30 days from the date of issue of letter or to pay the installments with interest as per schedule given in the letter. The original allottee did not make the payment within the stipulated period, due to this reason the interest @ 15% compoundable with quarterly basis, was charged from the original allottee. The original allottee did not make the payment within the stipulated period, due to this reason the interest @ 15% compoundable with quarterly basis, was charged from the original allottee. Now the petitioners who had subsequently purchased the house from the original allottee can not challenge the rate of interest at this belated stage especially when the original allottees have paid the money on 11.02.2004 i.e. prior to transfer of houses in the name of petitioners. Moreover, the original allottees were well aware of the fact that interest @ 15% quarterly rests was charged by answering respondent on enhanced land compensation amount.” 7. As has been noted by respondent No.2 in order dated 16.06.2006 (P-10), as per the allotment letter, the respondents were at liberty to fix price of the plot within 7 years from the date of allotment, which was to include, actual expenditure incurred on construction of tenements and/or any payment made towards enhancement in compensation of the land acquired. When additional amount of compensation was demanded by the HUDA, for the land allotted to respondent No.1, the same was proportionately claimed from the allottees. Detailed reasoning has been given in the order Annexure P-10 to demand additional amount towards price of the plots allotted. 8. Regarding charging of compounded interest, it has been stated that the same was charged as per the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Tenancy Agreement, policy of the respondent No.1 and on account of a fact that on the loan raised by respondent No.1, for development of the colony, compound interest was paid. Counsel for the respondents states that as per the agreement, the allottees are supposed to pay enhanced price of the plots and compound interest, they cannot turn back to say to the contrary. To say so, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in `Secretary, Bhubaneswar Development Authority Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra 2009(1) CPC 596, wherein by taking note of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, it was observed that, if at the time of allotment, allottee did not object to the terms of the lease agreement, after taking possession, it was not open to the allottee to say otherwise. Demand for any amount due, in terms of the agreement, do not give a cause of action to the lessee to lay challenge to the demand raised. 9. Demand for any amount due, in terms of the agreement, do not give a cause of action to the lessee to lay challenge to the demand raised. 9. In this case, it is not disputed that when amount of sale consideration was claimed and installments were fixed, calculation was made by adding 15% compounded interest, original allottee never laid challenge to the same, continued to deposit the installments as per the schedule given, as such, the petitioners, who have purchased the property in the year 2004 have no right to raise objection regarding demand of compounded interest. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Vs. Gangam District Tractor's Owner's Association and others' 1994(3) PLR 435, and the judgment dated 11.11.2002 passed by this Court in CWP No.16497 of 2001 titled as Gian Inder Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another', to contend that the compounded interest is not payable by the petitioners. 11. This Court feels that the ratio of the above mentioned judgments is not applicable to the facts of this case. In those judgments, it was specifically stated that if there is no stipulation in the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and it is not provide under the Rules and Regulations, the authority was not justified in claiming compounded interest, whereas to the contrary in this case, as has been discussed earlier, the initial calculation of the price of the plots was made after adding compounded interest (quarterly). This fact is apparent from the document Annexure P-11. 12. In view of the above, this writ petition fails and accordingly dismissed.