Sudhir Kapur v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Mr.Arun Kashyap, Advocate Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate Mr.Vikramjit Singh, Advocate for CWP No.20412 of 2009 2 Mr.R.S.Madan, Advocate Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Keeping in view the controversy involved in these writ petitions and with the consent of the counsel for parties, these petitions are disposed of at motion stage by this order since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions. The petitioners in CWP Nos.20412 and 20505 of 2009 were co- sharers. Consequently, their land was partitioned. In CWP No.20412 of 2009, it is stated that the partition was sanctioned vide order dated

16.3.1989 and mutation was also sanctioned in favour of father of the petitioner on 26.4.1990. Lands of all these petitioners were acquired under compulsory acquisition for development of residential and commercial areas of Sector 17, Panipat. Respondent no.1 formulated a policy for allotment of plots to the land owners whose land is acquired under compulsory acquisition. Under the policy dated 18.3.1992, the relevant conditions for allotment of plots were as under:- “ii)Oustees whose land acquired is: (a)Less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq. yds. (b)Between 500 sq.yds. And one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq. yds. (c)From 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yds or where 500 sq. yds plots are not CWP No.20412 of 2009 3 provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yds., each may be given. iii)The above policy shall also apply in case there a number of co-sharers of the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 yds. would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers. XXX XXX XXX vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the sector. Land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired. Vii) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the sector is floated for sale.” Father of petitioner Sudhir Kupur in CWP No.20412 of 2009 died and he applied for substitution of his name in place of his father Hira Lal Kapoor. It is stated that land measuring 5.75 standard Acres was acquired CWP No.20412 of 2009 4 and thus the petitioners were entitled to 1 Kanal (500 sq. yds) plot under the policy. In response to the advertisement dated 29.10.21992 for allotment of residential plots in Sectors13-17, Urban Estate, Panipat for various categories, including oustees, father of the petitioner applied for 1 Kanal of plot on 26.11.1992. The tentative price of the plot was advertised at Rs.987/- per sq. m. Certain information was sought from the father of the petitioner. It is alleged that even though the land had been partitioned, the authority decided to allot one single plot to all the co-sharers which prompted the petitioner to file CWP No.7940 of 2007. This writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated

7.8.2008 wherein following direction was issued:- “In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the writ petitions and direct the Haryana Urban Development Authority to allot plot in terms of policy of 1992 to the petitioner as has been done in cases of other co-sharers.” A similar direction was issued in the cases of Prem Sagar Kapur, petitioner in CWP No.20505 of 2009 and Mrs.Man Mohani Maggu petitioner in CWP No.7157 of 2010. As a matter of fact writ petitions of both the petitioners were disposed of by common order. In response to the aforesaid directions, allotment letters were issued in favour of the petitioners. Plot bearing No.444 in Sector 13-17, Panipat was allotted to Sudhir Kapoor, petitioner. Plot bearing No.1009 in Sector 13-17, Panipat was allotted to petitioner Prem Sagar Kapur and plot bearing No.469 in Sector 13-17, Urban Estate Panipat was allotted to petitioner-Man Mohani Maggu. They were asked to pay price at the rate of Rs.6930/- per sq. mtr. CWP No.20412 of 2009 5 Petitioners deposited the amounts under protest and made representations protesting against the enhanced rate being charged from them. Representations of the petitioners have not been decided. The petitioners thereafter applied under Right to Information Act seeking information regarding the rate prevalent at the time of acquisition under the 1992 policy. Petitioners were communicated vide letter dated 18.12.2009 that the tentative price of the plot at the time of acquisition was fixed at Rs.987/- per sq. mtr and in addition thereto, additional price at the rate of Rs.282.73 per sq. mtr. was charged, in view of the enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court in the month of November, 1995. Thus, the total price under the 1992 policy was Rs.1269.73 per sq. mtr. The respondents in their reply have stated that price to be charged from the petitioners has to be at the time of allotment and not the price which was prevalent in the year 1992. It is admitted position of the parties that the land was acquired in the year 1989 and award was also passed in the year 1990. In the advertisement notice issued by the respondents for allotment of the plots, the tentative price was fixed at Rs.987/- per sq.mtr. Petitioners applied in response to the said advertisement. In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, the clear and categorical direction is to allot plot in accordance with the 1992 policy. 1992 Policy, inter-alia, includes the price prevalent at the relevant time i.e. the issuance of advertisement. The delay in allotment is not attributable to the petitioners. The delay has been occasioned due to the respondents. The respondents have also charged additional price on account of the enhancement of the award amount by the concerned court. The petitioners who were the original owners of the land and whose lands were CWP No.20412 of 2009 6 acquired are definitely entitled to the benefit of 1992 policy. Any policy issued thereafter or any rate determined as the market value of the land is not relevant in so far as the petitioners are concerned, particularly when they applied within the stipulated period when applications were called for. This Court in CWP No.7940 of 2007 alongwith connected CWP Nos.7942 and 7943 of 2007 directed the respondents to allot plots in terms of the policy of

1992. The said policy inter-alia includes the rate prevalent at the relevant time. In view of the above circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed. Respondents are required to charge the rate as was prevalent when the first advertisement was issued and when the petitioners applied for allotment. Any excess amount, if already, deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to them by the respondents. Copy of this order be placed on record of each concerned file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

24.8. 2010 MFK