IMPORTANT POINT
Allotment of plot – Additional price can be demanded in case there is enhancement in cost of land awarded by competent authority under Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA No. 1449 of 2009 has been challenged in the present appeal. By the aforesaid order, the appeal filed by the Appellants was dismissed and concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court were upheld.

2. The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the allotment of plot to the Respondent.

3. The Respondent was allotted plot no.1084 in Sector- 14, (Part), Hisar vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 @ Rs.224.90 per sq. yard.

4. Notice was issued to the Respondent by the Appellants on 15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as well as to show cause as to why the plot should not be resumed on account of non-construction within a period of two years of allotment. The aforesaid notice was followed by subsequent notices and the last being dated 28.01.2002.

5. A civil suit was filed by the Respondent on 01.10.2003 challenging the demand raised by the present Appellants. The same was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appellant filed appeal which was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. The Appellants did not succeed even before the High Court.

6. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by the respondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions contained in the letter of allotment, the demand of additional price could be raised only in case of enhancement in cost of land by the competent authority under Land Acquisition Act. As in the case in hand, there is no enhancement in cost of land awarded by any Court or authority, therefore, no additional demand could be raised.

7. The argument raised by learned counsel for the Appellants is that the land in question was transferred by the Animal Husbandry Department, Haryana to the Appellants @ Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. However, later on the rate was revised to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre. On failure, the Appellants were not to be given possession of the land. The allotments had been made by the Appellants on 21.08.1986 @ Rs. 224.90. Initially when the plot was allotted to the Respondent, calculation of price was made taking the cost of the land at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. However, later on the cost was increased to Rs.3,00,000/- per acre, an additional price was demanded. The price of the plot was worked out at Rs.301.70 sq. yard and the additional demand was raised from the Respondent @ Rs.76.80 per sq.yd. It was also stated in the notice that though the cost of development charges has been increased in the last 5 to 6 years, however still the Appellants will bear the same. As the cost of the land to the Appellants increased, the same had to be borne by the allottees. The Appellants being non-profitable Organisation.

8. It was further stated in the notice that in case the Respondent is not ready to accept the allotment of plot on payment of an additional price, he may get his deposit back alongwith interest @ 10% p.a.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent pleaded that in the case in hand, one of the condition in the letter of allotment was that the price of the plot was tentative; the additional price can be demanded only on account of increase in cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted case of the Appellant that the land on which the plot in question was carved out was not acquired rather it was transferred by the Animal Husbandry Department of the State to the Appellants. The price thereof was determined at the time of transfer, however, in case later on different price is determined, the allottees cannot be made to bear the increased cost.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and relevant documents.

11. The fact that a plot was allotted to the Respondent vide allotment letter dated 21.08.1986 at the cost of Rs.224.90 per sq. yard, is not in dispute. It is also the admitted case of the appellant that the land on whi