http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY& ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ER. HARSH JAIN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/07/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)704

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the Division  Bench of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made  on  December  15,  1395  in  Writ  Petition No.7486/95.  The   undisputed  facts   are  that  the  first respondent was given a provisional letter of allotment dated October 29,  1991 (for  short, ’P.L.A.’)  in respect  of  an industrial plot  at Roz-Ka-Meo,  Industrial Estate,  Gurgaon admeasuring  4000   sq.   yard   at   tentative   price   of Rs.2,42,000/- worked  at the  rate of Rs.60.50 per sq. yard. The respondent  had deposited  a sum  of Rs.25,000/-  In the P.L.A. the  respondent was  called upon to deposit a further sum of   Rs  .35,500/- within  the stipulated period towards 25% cost  of the  land. The  balance 75%  was required to be paid in  six annual  equal instalments with interest at. 10% per annum subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated thereunder. The condition as envisaged are:      "i. To  get the  registration  with      the   Directorate   of   Industries      (GM/DIC) of the concerned Distt. or      registration with  DGTD/Ministry of      Industry, Govt. of India, depending      upon the  size  of  the  Industrial      undertaking i.e.  small  medium  or      large.      ii.  To   get  the   building  plan      approved   from    the    competent      authority.      iii. To  get sanction  letter  from      the financial Institution/banks for      financing the project.      iv. To  supply list  of  plant  and      machinery alongwith quotations.      v.  To   supply  to  Haryana  State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    Electricity Board  of release of an      electric connection to the preposed      site."      Para 3  provides  that  the  first  respondent  was  to communicate his  acceptance  of  the  provisional  allotment within the time specified therein. In case or non-receipt of acceptance it  was treated  to have  been withdrawn. In case the acceptance  was received within 30 days from the date of the receipt  of the  provisional allotment  the PLA would be valid for  a period  of 90 days in case the project is under self-financing and  180 days,  in case  he proposes to raise loan from  HFC/Banks/All Indian  Financial Institutions.  In that event,  he was  required to  furnish  proof  of  having completed required  formalities listed  in  para  2  to  the satisfaction of  the  Authority  He  was  also  required  to deposit security  equivalent to  10% of the cost of the land which would  be refundable on implementation of the project. The security  shall also stand forfeited if the construction was not  started within  three months  from the  date of the production of  sanction or  of two  years after issue of the allotment letters. Clause 5 is relevant which is as under:      "In    case    the    pre-requisite      formalities as  envisaged in para 3      are completed within the stipulated      period the  price mentioned in para      2 will  be charged  at the  time of      issue or final letter of allotment.      However, in  case an  extension  of      time has been sought for completion      of formalities  the rates prevalent      at  the  time  of  issue  of  final      letter  or   allotment   shall   be      charged."      Clause  8   says  that   PLA  shall   stand   withdrawn automatically after  expiry of  period mentioned  in para  4 above without any further reference and no correspondence in this regard will be entertained.      It is  not in  dispute that  the first  respondent  had proposed to  start an  industrial unit  or obtaining finance from Industrial  Financial Corporation. It would appear that he  had   submitted  his   application  to   the   Financial Institution for sanction of the land on the last date of 180 days namely,  April 5, 1992 1992 and he sought for extension of time.  The appellant had granted extension subject to the appellant paying  at the  rate of  Rs.1/- per  sq. year  per month by  proceedings dated May 14, 1992. The respondent did not pay  the extension  fee. The  appellants therefore,  had declined  to  accept  the  request  of  the    appellant  by proceedings dated July 7, 1992 for further extension of time to pay the extension fee. In the meanwhile, the rates of the land had  increased to Rs.192.45 per sq. yard as on July 31, 1992. The  final letter  of allotment had thereafter came to be issued  to the  first respondent  on  November  23,  1992 calling  upon   him  to  pay  at  that  rate  in  a  sum  of Rs.9,20,680.80. The  respondent had  challenged the legality of the demand made by the appellant in filing the above writ petition. The  High Court  has  directed  the  appellant  to collect at  the rate of Rs. 60.50 as per the PLA. Thus, this appeal by special leave.      Shri  Gupta,   learned  counsel   for  the  appellants, contended that in terms of para 5 of the PLA, the respondent was bound  to  pay  since  he  had  not  complied  with  the formalities under  PLA, in  paras 2 and 3. Consequently, the High Court  was wrong  in directing  the  appellant  not  to collect the  rate prevailing  as on  the date  of the  final

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

letter of allotment. The learned counsel for tho respondents contended that  the Government  had changed its policy as on September 21,  1991 directing  that even  in  case  of  non- compliance  of   the  condition   in  paras  2  and  3,  the authorities should collect at the rates prevailing as on the date of  issue  of PLA since the plots remained not allotted and re-cycling of the finance gets stagnated and, therefore, the necessary  allotment should  be made only at the rate as on date  of issue  of PLA.  In support  thereof, the learned counsel sought  to place  reliance on two letters one by the Commissioners  Industries,   Haryana  and  as  other  letter addressed by  the Deputy  Director, Land  Acquisition to the Director of  Industries, Haryana,  We have carefully scanned through the  above two  letters. These two letters were also relied upon by the High Court to conclude that the appellant is   bound by  the direction  issued by  the  Government.  A reading  of   the  order   passed  by  the  Commissioner  of Industries, Haryana dated June 15, 1993 would show in para 5 that the  cost of  the land communicated to the applicant in the LOI/PLA  should remain  uncharged  during  the  extended period given   to  any applicant.  In other  words, it would mean that  the order came to be passed on June 15, 1993 with the above  direction. It  was endorsed to the authorities on June 21,  1993. Therefore  the directions  to charge  at the unchanged  prices   during  the  extended  period  would  be applicable to  those cases  where the  extension was  to  be completed after  the aforesaid  date but  not to those which have already  been finalized.  It is not to those which have already been  finalized. It  is not  in dispute  that  final letter of  allotment was  issued to  the first respondent on November 23,  1992 by  which date the prices of the land had been increased  as on  June, 30,  1992 at  the rate  of  Rs. 192.45 per  sq. yard.  Under these  circumstances, the  High Court was  not right  in directing  the appellant to collect the prices of plot at Rs. 60.50 per sq. yard.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. Time is extended for payment of  the amount  with interest at 10% as given in the final letter  of allotment  for a  period of  5 months  from today. In  case the first respondent does not pay the amount within the  time specified.  the writ  petition would  stand dismissed without further reference. No costs.