JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant, J. [Oral] - This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 835, 1003, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1177, 1178 to 1180 of 2014 as all the appeals are directed against the order dated 14th August, 2013 whereby learned Single Judge has allowed a bunch of writ petitions filed by the respondents solely on the basis of their own statements to the effect that they are willing to deposit the additional demand raised by the appellant-Authorities in the year 1994 “along with simple interest @9% per annum” from the date of demand till the date of actual payment. 2. At the out-set, it may be noticed that there is delay of 220 days in filing of these appeals. Since learned counsel for the respondents have no serious objection against condoning the same, the applications are allowed and the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned. 3. The State of Haryana is aggrieved against the above mentioned direction of the learned Single Judge re: rate of interest on two counts. Firstly, it is pointed out that the learned Single Judge has over-looked the terms and conditions incorporated in the demand notices like dated 23rd October, 1986 [P-2], on which the State Government agreed to allot the additional area on deposit of total valuation of Rs.34000/-. A pointed reference is made to Clauses 6 and 8 of the conditional offer that the allottee shall be liable to pay the demanded amount within a maximum period of five years with penal interest @15% per annum. It is clarified that the allottees challenged these orders and it was after rejection of their appeal on 09th July, 1993 that a fresh notice was issued on 06th January, 1994 directing them to deposit Rs.34000/- within 15 days, failing which action will be taken under the Rules/ instructions. 4. In other words, it is urged that the notice dated 06th January, 1994 could not be read in isolation as if the allottee was required to pay Rs.34000/- only. The said notice was emanating from the offer dated 23rd October, 1986 [P-2] which stipulates payment of 15% penal interest as an essential condition. It is thus urged that the learned Single Judge could not have asked the allottees to pay simple interest @9% per annum as against the agreed rate of 15% penal/compound interest. 5. The said notice was emanating from the offer dated 23rd October, 1986 [P-2] which stipulates payment of 15% penal interest as an essential condition. It is thus urged that the learned Single Judge could not have asked the allottees to pay simple interest @9% per annum as against the agreed rate of 15% penal/compound interest. 5. The second contention is that the allotments were made in purported exercise of powers under the Displaced Persons [Compensation and Rehabilitation] Act, 1954 which has since been repealed by the Haryana Evacuee Properties [Management and Disposal] Act, 2008, whereunder an allottee is liable to pay the market rate of the allotted property. In this regard, reference is made to the decisions [A-8 to A-10] to contend that the old Act having been repealed, the allotment of additional land in favour of the respondents would be regulated under the new Act. 6. The third contention is that the additional land was allotted to the respondents through fraudulent means as full-size plots were divided into parts and given to the neighbour-hood plot holders thereby causing huge loss to the State exchequer. 7. Learned counsel for the allottee-respondents, on the other hand, refute the appellants’ contentions. They urge that the rate of interest has been reduced by the learned Single Judge in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance is also placed on the order dated 23rd January, 2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 698 of 1992 [The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana & Ors. Vs. Chandgi Ram & Ors.] : [2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1567 (DB)] where the order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge was relied upon and the allottees were permitted to deposit the due amount along with interest @9% per annum. It is further argued that provisions of the new Act would not apply and the Statute which held the field at the time when additional land was allotted to them in the year 1986, would be applicable. The other allegations have also been controverted. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to their rival contentions. Records have also been perused. 9. Firstly, we take up the third contention raised on behalf of the appellants, namely, the alleged fraud committed on the State while making allotments. The other allegations have also been controverted. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and given our thoughtful consideration to their rival contentions. Records have also been perused. 9. Firstly, we take up the third contention raised on behalf of the appellants, namely, the alleged fraud committed on the State while making allotments. On a perusal of the written statement filed before the learned Single Judge or the Grounds of Appeal, we find that no such plea was taken nor the record enables to draw such an inference. The plea is, thus, totally vague and evasive. On a pointed query, learned State Counsel is unable to explain whether any FIR was lodged against the officials/officers who were responsible for making illegal allotments? He also candidly admits that no disciplinary action was ever taken against any official/officer. In these circumstances, when the officers/officials who allegedly made illegal allotments have been allowed to go scot-free and there is scant material on record to substantiate the allegations, we do not find any merit in this contention and the same is rejected. 10. Adverting to the second plea of the appellants, namely, that the 1954 Act has been repealed and the new Statute has come into force since the year 2008-10 whereunder the additional land could be allotted as per the market value, we again do not find any merit in that contention. We say so for the reason that the additional land was offered to them in the year 1986 and then in 1994. The writ petitions filed in the year 1994 remained pending for a considerably long period during which the old Act was repealed. It is a coincidence that the writ petitions could not be decided before 2010 when the amended provisions of the new Act of 2008 came into force. In these circumstances, when the offer and its acceptance took place in the year 1986-94, the provisions of the 2008 Act, as amended in the year 2010, can not be applied more so when the new Act has not been enforced retrospectively. The second contention also must fail. 11. Coming to the first plea, namely, rate of interest, it may be seen from the letter dated 23rd October, 1986 that the allottees were offered additional land on payment of lump sum amount subject to its payment within five years along with penal interest @15% per annum. The second contention also must fail. 11. Coming to the first plea, namely, rate of interest, it may be seen from the letter dated 23rd October, 1986 that the allottees were offered additional land on payment of lump sum amount subject to its payment within five years along with penal interest @15% per annum. The allottee was liable to pay additional rate of Rs.250/- per square yard with 15% compound interest in case of the change of use of the area. The allottees unsuccessfully challenged these terms and conditions in an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 09th July, 1993. Thereafter, the Authorities gave an opportunity to deposit that amount within a period of 15 days vide notice dated 06th January, 1994. The allottees, however, came to this Court and obtained interim stay. 12. The plain reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge unfolds that the respondent-allottees did not contest the case on merits. Rather, they agreed to deposit the due amount “along with interest @9% per annum from the date of demand till the actual payment, so as to save ....... the property”. Their offer has been accepted by the learned Single Judge without the consent of the appellants or deciding the controversy on merits. 13. In our considered view, learned Single Judge could not have completely over-looked the Clauses 6 and 8 of the letter dated 23rd October, 1986 save after expressing views on legality, propriety and/or binding nature thereof. It is only in a case where the Court comes to a firm conclusion that the terms and conditions of a contract are unconscionable void-abinitio or in violation of public policy that the party to the contract can be permitted to wriggle out of the binding nature of agreed terms and conditions. Since the learned Single Judge has not delved upon the above stated issue, we accept the first plea raised on behalf of the appellants; set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the learned Single Judge for adjudication on merits. 14. As regard to the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the order dated 23rd January, 2014 passed in LPA No. 698 of 1992, suffice it to mention that the same Division Bench distinguished its order while issuing notice of motion in these appeals vide order dated 24th July, 2014. 14. As regard to the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the order dated 23rd January, 2014 passed in LPA No. 698 of 1992, suffice it to mention that the same Division Bench distinguished its order while issuing notice of motion in these appeals vide order dated 24th July, 2014. That apart, the cited order does not deal with any of the contentions noticed above. 15. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on 22nd December, 2014. 16. Having held that, we are also of the considered view that if the allottee-respondents agree to deposit the due amount along with 15% compound interest as per the terms and conditions of the offer, the learned Single Judge may accept the same and in that eventuality, the case need not be decided on merits. 17. Disposed of. Dasti. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————