Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 755 (PNJ)

Ravinder Kumar Koti v. State of Haryana

2018-02-16

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the interest on the amount deposited by him for plot No. 1225, Sector 52, Gurugram on account of delayed possession and also to release the interest on the excess amount deposited by the petitioner as recovery of enhanced compensation in view of letter dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure P-6). Further, a direction has been sought to the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 2.11.2017 (Annexure P-10) sent by the petitioner within stipulated time period. 2. In the year 2002, the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) advertised freehold residential plots of difference sizes in Sector 52, Gurugram. Shri Krishan Chand Koti (father of the petitioner) applied for a 6-Marla residential plot and was allotted plot No.1225, Sector 52, Gurugram on 17.7.2003 at the tentative price of Rs. 4,86,000/- at the rate of Rs. 3600/- per square meter. The said plot was transferred in favour of the petitioner vide re-allotment letter dated 17.9.2003 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 6.7.2011 (Annexure P-2) sought payment of enhanced compensation for the said plot amounting to Rs. 3,86,760/- at the rate of Rs. 2864.89 per square meter and the petitioner deposited the said amount. Vide letter dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure P-3), respondent No.4 offered the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner. Further, vide letter dated 11.2.2012 (Annexure P-4), respondent No.4 demanded the payment of enhanced compensation of Rs. 6,80,697/- at the rate of Rs. 5042.20 per square meter and the petitioner deposited the said amount. Respondent No.4 issued possession certificate dated 3.5.2012 (Annexure P-5) to the petitioner. The Chief Controller of Finance, HUDA, Panchkula vide letter dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure P-6) had revised the enhanced compensation to be recovered from the allottees of the plots in Sector 52, Gurugram and had given the credit of excess recovery along with interest at the rate of 870.69 per square yard. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 1.10.2014 (Annexure P-7) informed that as per the letter, Annexure P-6, the enhanced compensation is reduced to 2345.20 per square yard instead of Rs. 4215.89 per square yard and the recoverable amount was Rs. 3,78,656/-. A sum of Rs. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 1.10.2014 (Annexure P-7) informed that as per the letter, Annexure P-6, the enhanced compensation is reduced to 2345.20 per square yard instead of Rs. 4215.89 per square yard and the recoverable amount was Rs. 3,78,656/-. A sum of Rs. 3,01,933/- had been refunded to the petitioner vide draft dated 9.12.2014 but without any interest. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 28.9.2017 (Annexure P-8) informed that the offer of possession had been treated as 20.3.2012. As per the calculation, Annexure P-9, the amount of interest has to be paid to the petitioner at the rate of 9% per annum. The petitioner made various representations to the respondents for the payment of interest, but to no effect. Accordingly, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 2.11.2017 (Annexure P-10) to the respondents for the payment of interest on the amount deposited for plot No.1225, Sector 52, Gurugram and also on the excess amount deposited by the petitioner as recovery of enhanced compensation in view of letter dated 28.7.2014 (Annexure P-6), but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has served a legal notice dated 2.11.2017 (Annexure P-10) upon the respondents, but no action has so far been taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.4 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 2.11.2017 (Annexure P-10), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.