Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1 Defendants Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and its Estate Officer have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2 Respondents No. 1 to 6 and Madhu Sharma filed suit. However, respondents No. 2 to 5 and Madhu Sharma plaintiff No. 7 were given up in the trial court. 3 Defendants allotted separate plots to the plaintiffs. Defendants issued demand notices dated 28.10.2002 demanding additional price of Rs. 371.12 per square yard from the plaintiffs on the ground that price of acquired land for the sector, in which the plots are situated, was enhanced by this Court from Rs. 44/- per square yard (as determined by Additional District Judge) to Rs. 80/- per square yard. The plaintiffs in the suit challenged the said demand notices and sought declaration that demand notices arc illegal and null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought refund of the extra amount with interest already charged by the defendants from the plaintiffs under the impugned demand notices. The plaintiffs also sought true and proper accounts from the defendants as to how they worked out the demand @ Rs. 371.12 per square yard. Injunction, restraining the defendants from recovering the said amount as per demand notices, was also claimed. 4 The defendants contested the suit. It was pleaded that the demand notices are as per second enhancement of value of acquired land by this Court. Jurisdiction of Civil Court was also pleaded to be ousted by Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977 (in short - HUDA Act). Various other pleas were also raised. 5 Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat, vide judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and declared the impugned demand notices to be illegal and null and void. Defendants were also directed to refund the amount, if any, already paid by the plaintiffs, pursuant to the said notices. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. 6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7 Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is Arbitration Clause No. 15 in the allotment letters, whereunder all disputes and differences have to be referred to Arbitrator and therefore, civil suit was not maintainable. However, this contention has to be summarily rejected because no such plea was raised in the written statement. On the other hand, the defendants opted to contest the suit on merits. The plea of arbitration cannot be raised at appellate stage. 8 Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act. The contention has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents contending that the demand notices being nullity, jurisdiction of Civil Court is not barred, notwithstanding Section 50 of the Act. 9 The following substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal :- "Whether jurisdiction of Civil Court to adjudicate the suit is barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act ?" 10 Section 50 of the HUDA Act is reproduced hereunder :- "Finality of orders and bar of jurisdiction of civil court (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State Government or order passed or notice issued by the authority or its officer under this act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. (2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder." 11 According to condition No. 9 of the allotment letter, defendants were entitled to demand additional price of the allotted plots on enhancement of price of the acquired land by the courts. In the instant case, the defendants version is that this Court enhanced the price of the acquired land and consequent thereto, the demand notices were issued. In the instant case, the defendants version is that this Court enhanced the price of the acquired land and consequent thereto, the demand notices were issued. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, emphatically contended that defendants have failed to sub-stantiate their plea that this Court had enhanced price of the acquired land. However, I need not go into this factual aspect because substantial question of law, as framed herein above, has to be adjudicated upon. 12 Suffice to notice that the defendants admittedly had right to demand additional amount on enhancement of price of the acquired land. The impugned demand notices have been issued on the ground that price of the acquired land was enhanced by this Court. The question, therefore, arises whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issue as to whether the price of the acquired land was enhanced or not and if so, how much amount the defendants are entitled to demand from the plaintiffs. 13 Section 50 of the HUDA Act, as reproduced herein above, expressly bars jurisdiction of Civil Court and lays down that every order passed or notice issued by the Authority (HUDA) or its officers under the HUDA Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other proceedings. It further stipulates that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by HUDA Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. In the instant case, the impugned demand notices have been issued by Estate Officer - defendant "No. 2. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to challenge the same is expressly barred by Section 50 of the Act. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Limited v. Haryana Urban Development Authority Faridabad reported as 2003(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 36 : 2003 (3) PLR 842. It has been categorically laid down in this judgment that jurisdiction of Civil Court to challenge any action taken by HUDA or its officers under the HUDA Act is barred and even the concession cannot confer jurisdiction in a Court, where it had none. It has been categorically laid down in this judgment that jurisdiction of Civil Court to challenge any action taken by HUDA or its officers under the HUDA Act is barred and even the concession cannot confer jurisdiction in a Court, where it had none. In the instant case, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of express bar created by Section 50 of the Act. 14 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon ajudgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Gera v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another reported as 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 155 : 2005 (2) Civil Court Cases 97 (S.C.). However, in that case, the question of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court was not considered or adjudicated upon by the Honble Supreme Court. So, this judgment has no bearing on the substantial question of law, framed in the instant second appeal. 15 Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon another judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh and others reported as 2002(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 690: (2002)6 SCC 416. It has been laid down in this judgment that even if there is express or implied bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Court, if the order or action complained of is a nullity, Civil Court would retain its jurisdiction inspite of bar. However, in the instant case, the impugned demand notices cannot be said to be nullity or null and void because as per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, defendants had right to demand additional amount on enhancement of price of the acquired land. The question, whether demand raised is factually justified or not. would not make the demand notices null and void. There is significant difference between an action being wrong and an action being null and void. In the instant case, the impugned demand notices cannot be said to be null and void. Consequently, jurisdiction of Civil Court remains barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act. 16 For the reasons recorded herein above, the substantial question of law, as framed herein before, is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the appellants, holding that jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act. Consequently, jurisdiction of Civil Court remains barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act. 16 For the reasons recorded herein above, the substantial question of law, as framed herein before, is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the appellants, holding that jurisdiction of Civil Court to try the suit is barred by Section 50 of the HUDA Act. As a necessary consequence, the instant second appeal is allowed and judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside without adjudicating upon the claim of the plaintiffs on merits. Resultantly, suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. However, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to challenge the impugned demand notices as per remedies, if any available to them under the law to challenge the same.