CWP Noe1122of2003 R ot her connect edm at t ers v. HSAMB and ot hers

41n view of t he aforesaiddiscussionwe allow t his writ pet it ionand direct t he t o providewat er 1 supplyand sewerage facil it ies and ot her facilit ies as Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh rnent ionedin t he sanct ioned buildingplans t o all JOYTI RANI t he 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 Z e 4 1 J 1 1 J 1 1 Q 0 C I CD W Z 0 08 r10 3 Z Q r 1 I l 1 406 CWPNo1122 of2003 ot her connect ed m at t ers 11 plotholdersin t he New Grain Market Naneola Dist rict wit hina periodofone year I t is furt her direct ed Am bala 1 t hat t he would not chargeint erest and penal int erestfrom t he t ill t he wat er ancsewerage facilit iesare t o t hem in t he New Grain Market I t isalso m adeclear t hat t he pet it ionerswill const ruct lon on t he allot t cd plot sas pert he designwit hin a of t wo yearsfrom t he dat e of of t he wat er and sewerae facilit ies in t he New Grain Market However t he m eanwhile t he will cont inuet o pay inst alm et it sof t he price 1 flxed wit hout int erest The clause of int erest would com e int o aft er facilit ies of w8t er Supplyand sewerageare t o t hed pelit ionerslI l t henew Grain Market default I f t he com m it any paym entof inst alm ent s in t he m anner t heywill be liable t o pay int erest on t he said default as provided111 t he allot m ent let t er inst alm ent s have fallen dne t ill t oday t he et it ionersshallpay t he sam e t o t he wit hin ai periodof t wo m ont hs lf any new defaultin t he paym ent inst alm ent s is com nlit t edt he would be 1 liablet o pay int erestalso I l Division Bench in t he case of Mls Fat eh SinghJit ender Kum ar vs St at e of Haryanaand ot hers 2000 31PLR O V t he earlier Division Bench j udgm entin t he case of Mls Makhan JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Or5r Tz7 C e 4 40e 1 1 407 1 1 4 1 r CWP of2003 c ot her connect edm at t ers Lal DalipSinghet ce v HSAMB case of SinghKang v Chandigarh supraland ot her 9J0 12 in t h 1999 f 1 j 4 1 Z 0 0 I C5 I Z e J C1 I 08 Cll W2 Z Ll 0 1 1 11 The roads P6 and 17 relied upon by ShriHooda do not in anym anner supportt he case set up byt he A careful t he order 111 MakhanLal DalipSinghandot hersv HaryanaSt at eand ot herssupra9shows t hat pet it ionersMls Makhan Lal DalipSinghhadcom e wit h t he pleat hat it COld const ruct iondue t o lack of wat er and sewerage connect ions andalso because t helect ric passing over t he plotThe counsel seem s for t he a t o have on realisat ion t hat it was raise const ruct iOll for t he pet it ionert o t hexist ence of elect ric wiresover t he plot t o t he of condit ion by t he court am ount t hatint erest shall not be chargedon t he inst alm ent s The order passedin CWP No0948 of 1993 is but a reit erat ionof t he direct ion given in Mls MakhanLal DalipSinghscase supra9The pct it ionerin our consideredview cannot I I t ake I nt ageof t hose ordersbecause aS Per hiS OW showing t beconst ruct ion has been have been m ade availablet o it 4 A SingleBench oft his Court iil t hecase of Vinod Mit t l Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh and ot hers JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 LJ 9 1 1 408 1 1 J CWP N0a1122of2003 Sc ot her connect ed m at t ers 13 7se St at e of Haryana 0 Orse 200941RCR 6Civill528 considering sim ilarissue in t his cont ext and various 1 of HUDA held as 1 underl 1 1 e r 0 0 I C5 I Cr Z 1 n C I 1 0 c 7 Z 0a 1 1 1 Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh t he relevant 161 On a colnbined readingof of t he HUDA Act and t he Regulat ions t hat t he basicam enit ies can be said t o have been when t he m et aledroads wholesom ewat er sewerage and elect rificat ionis andinade available t o t he allot t ees The which includes am enit y is a wider act ivit iesI ilce t het ourist spot s open space parkS and play flelds et c Thought he expression has not been defined under t he HUDA Act or t he lim it ed purpose of nablingan allot t ee t o ut ilizet he allot t cdsit e it would includet he basic am enit iesonlyand not be providedfor t he ent ire ebe conflned t o t he am enit ieswhich are t o a8d need not urban area however only The t he obligat iont o t he is offered t hus under a egal t he basic am enit ies and works before t he 1171 Siinilarly t he Iiabilit yof an allot t ee t o pay int erest on t hebalanceallot m ent priceshall accrue fromt he dat e of offer of only which in t urn m eans t hat works consist ingof basic be offered only on unlesst he I t am enit ies are aut horit iescannot chargeint erest om t he allot t ee Thecont ent ion raised on behalf of t he t hat t he t he agreed allot t ee is basic am enit iesis n6t a bilat erally for chargingint erest from t he and m erit s t hus t ot ally I n vielv of t he above referred im pOSlng Honble obligat ions upon Suprem eCourt UeT ChandigarhAdm inist rat ion Singh8i Orse 200940SCC 660lso t o t herescue of t he t he t hc principleslaid down by t he lt l a recent decision in Ve Am arj eet do not com e The HUDA is a t he welfare St at e I t has t oact ext endedhand of st rict lyln accordance wit h it s own Sincet he local com m issionerhas found as a m at t er works com prisingt he of fact t hat t he aut horit yconst it ut ed t o a P 1 1 1 11 8 t 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 I l b 1 j 1 1 JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document S 1 409 1 1 0P 1 1 Cv C CWPNoe1122of2003 ot her connect edm at t ers 14 1 basic ainenit I es were haveno heslt at ion in holdingt hat t he pet it ioners are liable t opayint erestwit h effect from 161 992 onwardsand not priort heret o 10 992 1 in June LearnedSingleJudge111 case of Pawan Kum ar vs St at e of Haryanaand anot her CWP No8129of2008 decidedon 1252009 while t he right sof t he of t he Market Com m it t ee obseriledas I n t hisview oft he m at t er t here can be noescapebut t o hold t hat t hepet it ionerhavingdefault edin paym entof due inst allm ent s as pert he agreedSchedule t he have right lyheld it int erest liable t o pay penaland as per t he agreedt erm s and condit ions of t he allot m ent andno direct ion for t he refund t hereof can be issued The writpet it ionis of acordingly Anot her Bench of t his Court in a bunch of writ pet it ionst it led asBir SinghNain and ot hers vs HaryanaSt at e Agricult uralMarket ing HaryanaPanchkula and ot hers WP Nol2018 of 2008 and connect edm at t ers decidedon ObSerVedaS Und The st andof t he Board t hat basic am enit ieswere t he t im e of allot m ent n by t he allot t ees Under t he writ pet it iont his Court will not l t his issue Since t he m at t er has alreadybeen f decidedbya SingleJudgeof t his Court relyingupon in Mls I nvest nent s Case have right lypaidt he penalint erest Therefore 4e9 pet it ionersare not ent it ledt o any refund for m aking JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 1 10 0 0 I C 1e Z W c 08 C m no Z CL 1 1 E 1 I l 15no P64 J 410 6V CWP No1122 of2003 8 ot her connect ed m at t ers 15 ofext ension fee and penalint erest While consideringsim ilar lSSue Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of UT ChandigarhAdm inist rat ion 8c Anr Vs Am arj eetSingl Orse JT 200941 SC 39 relied upon it s earlier in t he case of r Corporat ionChandigarhv Shant ikunjI nvest m ent s Pvt Lt de2006 41SCC 109 and various ot her and observed t he 25 per cent 1839 As per t hreeannual at t he rat e of 10 per cent t he 75 per cent of handed over and rest of leased 8in0unt t o be paidin a st aggeredm anner int erest t he t erm s of allot m ent upon will be t he inst allm ent s alongwit h I f som eone want s t he not be t o pay any int erestBut if a part ywant s t o m akepaym entwit hin a periodof t hree years t hen he is under t he obligat iont o y 10 per cent int ereston t he am ount of inst allm ent This is t ht t he allot t ee as per t he t o depositt he whole of am ounthe can do so t he 75 per cent of I n t hat case he will t he part of condit ionof lease and he cannot get out of it by t he basic am enit ies have not been sayingt hat for enj oyingt he allot t ed land t herefore liable t o pay t he int erest he is not We asked t he leam ed counsel for t he part iest o t ell of t he lessor in t he lease US which is t he deedwhich says t hatt heywill not chargelnt erest OI l t he inst allm ent sbefore providingt he am enit ies There ls neit her any condit ionin t he lease nor any I f t he part ieshave givent heir bids anOwit ht heir eyes wide open t hey have t o blam e t hem selves I t cannot be enforced by any m andam us as t hereis cont ained in t he lease deed or nooce 11 under t he auct ion ln t he auct ior no obligat ion 1 1 1 11 e S 1 1 0 1 f 1 r 0 0 I 1 C5 Z r r I a5 m 7 Z 0 7 m Therefore bidder cannot seek int erestpayableas per rules 51 is evident t hat a lesseelsuccess11 of t he nst alm ent s t he of accrual of Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 1 20We a posit ion t o accept t he subm ission of Shri Bhandare t hat equit ywould not dem andchargingof int erest even t hought he plot s JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 I o l 4 111 4 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Q 0 0 I CD I Z I 08 00 Z t l 1 1 1 CWP Noo1122of2003 O ot her connect ed m at t ers 1 16 t he sam e are yet t o be fully developedWhen part iesent er t heyare t o abide by t he t erm s and int o cont ract condit ions of inequit ableI n t he presentcase quest ionof equit y does not really relat ingt o int erest vires ofwhich has not been challengedI l t he condit ion lS founded on a st at ut oryrule unless t he I inasm uch as 24 But different t he fact s of t his case The auct ion sale was in Decem ber 1996 are com plet ely P will have no The Nat ionaCom m ission has recorded a finding t hat alm ost all t he facilit ieslam enit ieshad provided 111t he year 1999 t hat is wit hin about t wo years Thereforet he observat ionsoft his COUrt lI l para38 t o t hese cases part icularlyas t heywere m adein t he cont ext of a writ proceedingwhereas we are concem ed wit h a under Consum er Prot ect ion Act We m ay also refer t o anot her aspect Sect ion 7 t he Act em powers t he Cent ral Govem m ent t o levy such fees and t axes as it m ay consider necessary t ax for t het im e beingleviableunder any ot her lawJ in espectof any Slt e or buildingon t he t ransferee t he purpose of providing t hat auct ion of plot son or cont inuingany am enlt y This provisionclearlydem onst rat es 6whichshall be in addit ion t o any fee t he providingam enit ies is not t he occupiert hereof leasebasis and t he linkec t o paidis not for providinganyam enit yThe Cent ral Governm ent1S requiredt o provideam enit iesby levyingfees and t axes in respectof t he t ransfereesloccupierst hereof Therefore it 1S doubt ful whet her any reduct ionln int erestcould be m ade on t he ground of am enit ies Be t hat as it m ay As we have alreadyheld t hat para 38 will not applywe do not proposerexam I ne t hat aspectany furt herin t hesecases 11 Even t houghDivision Bench of t his Court t he cese of Pankaj Sharm aand ot hers supKalruled t hat liabilit yt o pay int erest and I I accrues on com plet ionof facilit ies However a Division Bench 111t he case of Mls Fat eh SinghJit ender Kum ar lpra had differentopinion t he liabilit yt o pay int erest and penalt eres a lI l t he event of default The cont roversyhas been now Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh set t led at rest by JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 412 1 V 1 CWP No1122 of2003 Scot her connect ed m at t ers CV 17 Honble Suprem eCourt in t he case of MunicipalCorporat ion lpral wherein it has been held t hat unless t hereis any obligat ionon t he part of t he aut horit ies t o provideam enit iesand t he inst alm ent shas correlat ionwit h t he am enit iest o be provided t heaallot t eeis not ofit s liabilit yt o pay int eresrand penalint erest lI l t heevent of default nor such a successfulbidder can seek of t he inst alm ent sof of accrual of int erest 1 m 0 0 payableas per ruleslcont ract Clauses 5 and60f t he allot m ent let t er im posean upont he allot t ee t o pay t he inst alm ent sas per t he schedule and in t he CD event of default t o pay t he penalt yThe st at ut oryruleswerefram ed in t he I Z 2 4r I 08 00 m wo Z year 2000againim posinga liabililyt o pay int ereston inst alm ent sfrom t he dat e inst alm ent is due as is evident from Rule 4 Rule 5 furt her r t hat possessionshall be offeredt o t he allot t ee wit hin 30 daysfrdm t he dat e of issue of allot m ent let t er Minim um basic facilit ies like roads wat ersupplyelect rificat ion et c are exist ingand if t hesebasic facilit iesare not exist ingt hen afler providingt he said basic facilit ies These rules t hus st at ut oryprot ect iont o t he allot t eesagainstt he paym entof int erest fromt he dat eof offer of and t he is t o be delivered on providingt he basic facilit ies These st at ut oryprovisionshave irt her been am endedon 532002 which furt her t he posit ionThese rules are in nat ure andicannotbe applied Thus t he legal posit ionwhich em erges is as underl t 19All cases of allot m ent prior t o fram ingof st at ut oryrules dat ede 1032000 shall be governedbyt he cont ract Under t he con1m ct 4e t here lS no condit ion or covenant Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh t hat t he liabil it y t o pay int erest penal JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 761 I r b 1 1 4 1 1 1 t e 1 1 1 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 9 Ij 1 r 1 4 1 1 1 1J 1 e 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 I l 0 0 I CD Z Z a2 0 I 08 C 3 11 I l 3 Z Cln 413 CWPNoe1122of2003 ot her connect edm at t ers 1 V S 18 int erest shall be facilit ieslam enit iesSuch oft heallot t eeswho were allot t edplot spriort o 1032000 are liable t o payint erest nd penalt yin accordancewit h t he t erm s and condit ions 4 oft he allot m ent let t er 29Such of t he allot t eeswho were allot t ed plot saft er 2000 are liable t o payint erest and penalint erest fromt he dat e offer of was m ade The possession1St o be offered from t he dat e of basic likeroads wat er supplyelect rificat ionare m adeavailable Thust he liabilit yt o pay int erest under t he st at ut oryprovisions becom es from t he dat e basic facilit ies are providedand is offered r ext ensiOO fee is concernedat t he t im e of allot m ent of plot sin t he year 1988 t here was no provisioneit her in t he cont ract or any provisionfor paym entof ext ension feeExt ensionfee for t he first t im e cam e t o be int roducedvide policy dat ed 29998 and t hus t he ext ension fee becom es only in respectof plot swhere const ruct ionhas not been carried out wit h t he t enns and condit ions of afore m ent ionedpolicydat d 29A1998 b These pet it ionsare disposedof lI l t erm sof t he above 1 direct ions 6 e122010 MFK 1 e PERMOD KOHLI I JUDGE r 4 4 1 Not el Wheht er t o be referred t o Report eror not I NO Rawat Seema 2013.12.28 10:28 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh 2Al 1 e I JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document