Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4584
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
H.S. Madaan, J.
Pawan Vats - Appellant
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority - Respondent
RSA No. 1616 of 2008 (O&M)
Decided On : 17-12-2018
Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; B.R. Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate, for the Respondents
The transferee of an allottee is bound by the terms of the allotment, including payment obligations and interest charges, as specified in the allotment letter.
Headnote:
Interest - Property Dispute - HUDA Act, 1977, Section 50(2) - Haryana Builders Ltd., Gurgaon v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors., 2002 HRR 649 - Ram Kishan Gulati and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 HRR 63 - S.M.S. Sandhu v. Chandigarh Administration and others, AIR 2003 Supreme Court - 1138
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for declaration and injunction regarding a commercial site allotment. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that the plaintiff was liable for delayed payments and interest.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, decreeing for declaration and mandatory injunction. The first appellate court upheld the decision, emphasizing the terms of the allotment letter and the plaintiff's obligation to pay interest on delayed payments.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the civil court, validity of demand for interest, and entitlement to charge compound interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, as a transferee of the original allottee, was bound by the terms of the allotment, including the payment schedule and interest charges. The court emphasized the authority's right to charge interest and the finality of orders under Section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's judgment and decree.
JUDGMENT
H. S. Madaan, J. - Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Pawan Vats, resident of Faridabad had brought a suit for declaration with consequential relief of prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against defendants Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short - HUDA) through its Administrator, Sector-12, Faridabad and the Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad on the averments that Booth No.134, Sector-8, Faridabad measuring 75.62 Sq.Meters was allotted to one Bodh Raj vide allotment letter bearing No.291 dated 23.1.1998 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,15,000/-; that an amount of Rs. 1,01,500 was deposited at the time of auction and another amount of Rs. 1,52,250/- was deposited in order to make payment of 25% of the total sale price; that the balance amount was to be paid in ten six monthly installments including the interest; that the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 11,81,943/- towards that plot; that at the time of auction, it was promised by the defendants that necessary development work would be carried out in the area at the earliest including providing facility of sewerage, electricity, roads etc., however, after the allotment the defendants did not carry out any development work in the area; that the plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the physical possession of the land but defendant No.2 failed to deliver the same; that vide letter dated 8.7.2002, the defendant No.2 was requested to hand over the possession so that plaintiff could raise the construction but the defendants instead of doing so addressed a letter No.28481 dated 15.7.2002 vide which the plaintiff was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 1, 42,385 and only then the possession sought could be delivered. According to the plaintiff, she had already deposited the excess amount of Rs. 1,12,128.52 and no amount was due towards her; that demand notice No.28841 dated 15.7.2002 whereby the demand of Rs. 1,42,365/- had been raised, was illegal, null and void. Hence the suit was filed.
2. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit raising preliminary objections that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of provisions of Section 50(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977; that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to bring the suit; that suit was not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee; that as per clause 6 of the letter of allotment, it was clearly mentioned that the possession of the commercial site in question might be taken immediately after making payment of balance 15% amount as demanded. It was further pleaded that as the possession stood offered, the plaintiff was required to make a motion for taking possession but she failed to do so. It was further pleaded that notice of demand of Rs. 1,42,365/- had been validly made and that the HUDA could demand interest on the delayed payment @ 18% per annum as per clause of the allotment letter. Denying remaining allegations, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issued were framed:
1. Whether the demand of Rs. 1,42,365/- is wrong, illegal, unlawful and against theterms and conditions of the allotment letter? OPP.
2. Whether the defendant is not entitled to charge compound rate of interest? OPP.
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
6. Relief.
4. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff got her statement recorded as PW1 besides examining Hanuman Singh as PW2. The plaintiff also tendered in evidence documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
5. On the other hand, the defendants had examined Shri Sh.Daya Nand as DW1 besides tendering documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, issue No.3
