SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(P&H) 1092

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
[DIVISION BENCH]
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina
LPA No.502 of 2011 (O&M) in CWP 1122 of 2003
Raksha Rani
v.
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.
{Decided on 14/09/2012}

Advocates:
For the Allotee:Mr. Ravi Kapur, Advocate & Ms. Sonia, Advocate.
For the Board:Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000--Allotment of plots in Grain Market, Kalka--Demand of extension fee--All cases of allotment prior to amendment of statutory rules on 5.3.2002 shall be governed by the contract--Under the contract, there is no condition or covenant that the liability to pay interest, penalty shall be dependent upon providing facilities/amenities--Such allottees are liable to pay interest and penalty in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter--Contract Act, 1872. (Para 29)

       (B) Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000--Allotment of plots in Grain Market, Kalka--Liability to pay interest and penalty--Plot allotted after 5.3.2002--Such allottees liable to pay interest and penalty from the date, offer of possession was made--The offer of possession is to be made after the basic facilities, like roads, water supply, sewerage, electrification are made available--It would be a question of fact to be decided in each case as to whether the possession has been offered on completion of basic amenities, in contradistinction with such amenities as are in optimum utilization of the plot. (Para 29)

       (C) Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property) Rules, 2000--Allotment of plots in Grain Market, Kalka--Liability to pay extension fee--The liability to pay extension fee is in terms of the policy framed by the Board/Market Committee from time to time prior to the framing of Rules on 10.3.2000--The plots allotted on or after the said date would be liable to pay extension fee in terms of the Rules framed. (Para 29)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: - The above-mentioned Letters Patent Appeals arise out of an order dated 6.10.2010 in CWP No. 1122 of 2003, filed by appellant-Raksha Rani (hereinafter referred to as an ‘Allottee’), wherein challenge was to Annexures P.14 and P.15, demanding extension fee from the said appellant. The appellant has also sought refund of the interest deposited by her towards the payment of installments and penalty. LPA No. 1168 of 2011 has been filed by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short ‘the Board’) and Market Committee, Kalka against the same order.

2. The learned Single Judge, has disposed of a number of writ petitions vide the same order dated 6.10.2010. The appeals arising out of the said order have been preferred by the allottees and the Board, including the Market Committee. Certain other appeals have been preferred by the parties aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Single Judge based upon the said order dated 6.12.2010 and also the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on the same lines, but without reference to the order dated 6.12.2010. Certain writ petitions claiming similar relief are also listed for hearing. All these cases, as mentioned at the footnote, are being disposed of by a common order since similar questions of law and facts are raised in these cases.

3. The facts leading to the present appeals are that a public notice was published inviting applications for allotment of plots in Grain Market, Kalka. The public notice contemplated that Mandi is being developed in the modern way and proper arrangements are being made for pucca platform, cattle sheds, park and rest house, latrines, cold drinking water from dispensing machines, electricity and sewerage. In terms of the said advertisement, the auction was held on 15.02.1983. The allottee was successful bidder for allotment of a plot measuring 16’ x 50’ for an amount of Rs.32,000/-. Some of the relevant conditions of the letter of allotment are as under:

“5. The sum of Rs.8000/- paid by you as earnest money has been adjusted in your plot amount. You are requested to remit a sum of Rs.24,000/- on account of 75% balance sale price, either within 30 days of receipt this allotment letter without interest or in three half yearly instalments together with interest at 7-1/2% per annum accruing from the date of issue of this letter as mentioned hereunder.

xx xx xx

6. In case of failure to deposit the instalment/s by the 10th of the month following month in which it fails due a penalty as given below be levied on the defaulters.

For 1st default 5%

For 2nd default 7½ %

For subsequent default 10%

xx xx xx

13. The transferee shall complete the building within one year from the date of issue of items of the allotment orders. The time limit may be extended for a period not exceeding six month by the Market Committee Kalka if it is satisfied that the failure to complete the building within the said period was due to persons beyond the control of the transferee. Beyond that the sanction of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, shall be required on an application for the extension of time. 14. Market Committee Kalka will not responsible for

levelling of uneven sites.

xx xx xx

16. Plans of construction would be first got approved from the Chairman, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board or such other Officer as may be authorized. However, standard plan may be obtained from the above office on payment of such a fee as may from time to time be prescribed by the said Board.

xx xx xx

18. Should any transferee fail to observe or comply with any of the terms and conditions mentioned above the plot will be resumed and his deposit shall be forfeited to the Market Committee Kalka which may have the property resold by public auction.”

4. It is pleaded by the allottee that in the year 1984, a letter was received to take over possession, but no physical possession was delivered to the allottee and yet the allotte
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top