Conversion charges - Change of land - Charges fixed on basis of statutory provisions - Agreement to pay charges cannot be held to be unconscionable - Charges are to be paid before completion of projects.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This Judgment will dispose of the aforesaid five writ petitions (C.W.P. Nos.5036 of 1997, 3596 of 1997, 5551 of 1997, 15748 of 1998 and 2795 of 1998) as common questions of law are involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions. The basic issues raised in all the aforesaid writ petitions are identical. We have, therefore, made reference to the detailed pleadings as contained in the case of M/s Trishul Industries (C.W.P. No. 5036 of 1997). Reference to additional facts from other writ petitions have been made whilst noticing the submissions of the learned Counsel.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm having its registered office in New Delhi. Inspired by the declaration and open policy of the Government of Haryana to develop tourism in the State, its progressive economic policy and liberalization, the petitioner-firm conceived a project of establishing a restaurant and resort hotel, in the area forming part of revenue estate of village Shekhopur, District Gurgaon. The Resort hotel and the restaurant would cover an area of 47,841 sq. yards, after excluding the area that falls within 50 meters of the restricted belt along the National Highway No. 8. The land on which the Hotel and the Restaurant were to be constructed, is owned and possessed by the petitioner-firm. The land being agricultural in nature, the petitioner approached the Director, Town and Country Planning (hereinafter referred to as "the Director") for grant of permission regarding change of land user. The permission is necessary under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Act") and the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1965 Rules"). By letter dated 8.3.1995 (Annexure P-1), the petitioners-firm was requested to fulfill certain conditions before granting permission for change of land use. The petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs. 9,56,820/- as conversion charges. The petitioner also supplied the other information as desired by the Director in the letter dated 8.3.1995. The petitioner claims that there is no provision in the 1963 Act or in the 1965 Rules under which the petitioner could be asked to pay conversion charges. The petitioner was further compelled to give an affidavit to the effect that it shall pay additional amount of conversion charges on revised rates and for variation of area at the site. The petitioner was also compelled to execute an agreement containing a similar clause. The agreement is to be executed as provided in Form CLU-II. The agreement had to be executed under Rule 26-D of the 1965 Rules which does not provide imposition of conversion charges while granting permission regarding the change of land use. The petitioner being at the receiving end had no choice but to pay the demand amount of Rs. 9,56,820/- and to accept the clauses regarding the payment of additional conversion charges as well as to give the affidavit. The petitioner claims that the acceptance of an illegal clause was obtained under misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion by taking advantage of the dominant position of the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted No Objection Certificate/Licence for Construction of the approach road to the Hotel and the Restaurant. Permission for change of land use for the establishment of the Restaurant and the Resort Motel was granted to the petitioner by the Director by letter dated 13.9.1995 (Annexure P-5). The project of the petitioner was also approved by the State Tourism Promotion Board, Haryana by letter dated 7.12.1995. Zoning plan for the project was approved on 18.12.1995. The petitioner furnished a bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 25% of the cost of the development works. The building plans submitted by the petitioner were also approved by the Building Plan committee for controlled area, Gurgaon on