Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 406 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2013-04-01

A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- The petitioners have questioned the validity of demand notice dated 09.09.1983 asking them to pay enhanced price of Rs.73.13/- per square yard for the plots allotted to them. 2. The undisputed facts are that the land measuring 61.21 acres in Mani Majra, a part of Union Territory, Chandigarh, was acquired vide notification dated 02.01.1979 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for the public purpose, namely, for the planned development by the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”). It was followed by the notification dated 17.03.1979 issued under Section 6 of the Act. A lay out plan of the residential-cum-commercial complex, known as 61.21 acres development scheme, Manimajra was approved by the Notified Area Committee vide its resolution dated 28.04.1979. The tentative price for allotment of residential site was Rs.60/- per square yard and for commercial site was Rs.500/- per square yard. Different sizes of plots were offered under the category “residential sites” by the Committee out of which 96 plots were of 1 Kanal, 71 plots were of 14 Marlas, 75 plots were of 10 Marlas, whereas 67 shop-cum-office sites each measuring 35'.3" x 75' and 12 sites measuring 17'.3" x 31'.6" were offered under the category of “commercial sites”. Out of the total area of 61.21 acres, the area earmarked by the Committee for commercial purposes was 15.75 acres and for residential purposes it was 45.46 acres including the areas to be used for roads, public convenience and open spaces. It is also not in dispute that the land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Civil Court treated the whole acquired land as of the same quality but awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per marla for the land upto 140 feet from the Chandigarh-Panchkula road and assessed the remaining land beyond 140 feet from the Chandigarh-Panchkula road @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 3. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 had applied for allotment of 1 Kanal plot, petitioner No.6 for 10 Marla plot and petitioner Nos.7 to 12 for 14 Marlas plot. 3. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 had applied for allotment of 1 Kanal plot, petitioner No.6 for 10 Marla plot and petitioner Nos.7 to 12 for 14 Marlas plot. After enhancement of compensation by the Civil Court, the respondents, in terms of the provisions of the allotment letter, served a demand notice dated 09.09.1984 upon the petitioners asking them to pay additional enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.73.13/- per square yards. According to the respondents, in terms of the order of the learned Civil Court dated 19.10.1981, the Committee had to pay Rs.91,94,678.90 p. as enhanced compensation. The said amount is charged upon the plotted area in the residential part measuring 95,885.31 square yards, for commercial part of the complex measuring 21,164.50 square yards and one hotel site measuring 9,680 square yards. The total plotted area, thus, came to be 1,25,729.81 square yards and the amount of Rs.91,94,678.80 p., which was paid by the Committee to the land owners, comes to Rs.73.13 p. per square yards, which has been demanded by them from the petitioners. 4. The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that the amount of Rs.73.13 p. per square yard has been charged from the petitioners only in respect of the residential plots which has been refuted by the respondents alleging that the burden of enhanced compensation in respect of commercial sites has not been placed on the residential plot owners. It is rather alleged that the payment of additional enhanced price has to be recovered proportionately from all the allottees and also with regard to the land which has come under the open spaces, public conveniences and roads etc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has candidly submitted that the payment of enhanced compensation has to be paid by them in terms of para 4 of the allotment letter in which it was stipulated that “the price mentioned in para 2 above is tentative to the extent that if any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the Notified Area Committee. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand”. 6. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of its demand”. 6. Since it is already stipulated in the allotment letter that enhanced price in the cost of the land, awarded by the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, is liable to be paid by the plot holders, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to object to the said payment. However, it is made clear that it has been categorically mentioned in para 4 of the allotment letter that the payment has to be made proportionately as determined by the Notified Area committee and since it has been specifically averred in para 13 of the written statement that the burden of enhanced compensation in respect of commercial sites has not been placed on the residential plot owners, their anxiety of having been burdened with the enhanced compensation of the share of the commercial site owners is also now misplaced. Anyhow, to remove any kind of doubt, we hereby hold and direct that the petitioners would be liable to pay the enhanced amount of compensation, which has been paid by the Committee to the land owners, proportionately to be determined on the acquired land. 7. The other submission made by the petitioners is with regard to calculation of the amount of Rs.73.13 p. per square yard. In this regard, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the details of the calculation shall be supplied to the petitioners. 8. The third and last submission made is that the respondents have also claimed penalty of 10% which could not have been charged because the penalty clause correlates with the amount of installments which are mentioned in para 6 of the allotment letter and not with the enhanced amount of compensation. 9. We have found force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In para 6 of the allotment letter, it has been provided that after paying 25% amount of the total price, balance 75% tentative price shall be paid by the allottee in six annual installments with interest @ 7% per annum. 9. We have found force in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. In para 6 of the allotment letter, it has been provided that after paying 25% amount of the total price, balance 75% tentative price shall be paid by the allottee in six annual installments with interest @ 7% per annum. The date of installment and the amount to be paid have been specifically mentioned in the allotment letter and in para 7 thereof, it has been categorically provided that if the installment is not paid by the 10th of the month following the month in which it falls due, the President of the Committee shall proceed to take action by imposition of penalty which shall not exceed 10% of the amount of installment. 10. Thus, the amount of penalty of 10% correlates with the amount of installment and not with the amount of additional enhanced compensation, which is being claimed on account of enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court. Insofar as the payment of interest is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as soon as they received the notices on 09.09.1983, the writ petition was filed on 07.10.1983 and on 10.10.1983, recovery was stayed of the enhanced amount beyond Rs.20 per square yard which has already been paid. It is submitted that the amount has been retained by the petitioners under the orders of the Court and, thus, are not liable to pay the interest. We are in agreement with the contention raised by counsel for the petitioners in this regard that because of the stay of recovery of enhanced amount of compensation by this Court, the remaining amount was not paid by the petitioners for which they are not liable to pay the interest. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————