HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENF AUTHORITY & ANR.versusER. HARSH JAIN & ORS .

   HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENf AUTHORITY & ANR.                                  A
                        v.
              ER. HARSH JAIN & ORS .

                              .JULY 19, 1996
                                                                               B
            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

       Industrial Plot-Price escalation-Permissibility of-Allottee issued
provisional letter of allotment-Stipulation that if allottee seeks exte11sion of
time for completion of pre~requisite fomzalities the rates prevalent at the time
                                                                               c
of issue of final allotment letter would be chargecf-Allottee allowed exte11sio11
of time subject to payme11t of extensio11 fee-/11 the mea11while rates of land
increase<f-17iereafter final letter of allotment issued to allottee ca/li11g upo11
him to pay e11ha11ced p1ie<"'-{;hallenge by allotte&-High Court directing to
collect the p1ice as mentioned in the provisional letter of allotment-Appeal
by Development Amhority-Allottee relying on policy decisio11 of Gove11une11t D
which provided that cost of la11d mentioned in the provisional letter of allot-
ment should remai11 uncha11ged dwing the exte11ded pe1io<f-Held Govem-
ment policy was to operate prospectively-Directio11s for u11cha11ged prices
dwing extended period were applicable to those cases where the extension was
to be completed after the prescribed date and not to those cases which have
already bee11 finalise<f-A/lottee held liable to pay the cost of land as given E
in the final letter of allotment.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9893 of
1996.
                                                                                F
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.95 of the Punjab &
Hary1na High Court in C.W.P. No. 7486 of 1995.

        Sunil Gupta and Puneet Dutt Tyagi for the Appeliants.

        Anit Mital and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.                         G
        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

        Leave grant"d.                                                         H
                                     783
    784                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A        This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division
  Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made on
  December 15, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 7486/95. The undisputed facts are
  that the first respondent was given a provisional letter of allotment dated
  October 29, 1991 (for short, 'P.L.A.') in respect of an industrial plot al
B Roz-ka- Meo, Industrial Estate, Gurgaon admeasuring 4000 sq. yard al
  tentative price of Rs. 2,42,000 worked at the rate of Rs. 60.50 per sq. yard.
  The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000. In the P.L.A. the
  respondent was called upon to deposit a further sum of Rs. 35,500 within
  the stipulated period towards 25% cost of the land. The balance 75% was
  required to be paid in six annual equal instalments with interest at 10%
C per annum subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated thereunder.
  The conditions as envisaged are :

            "(i). To get the registration with the Directorate of Industries
            (GM/DIC) of the concerned Distt. or registration with
            DGTD/Minislry of Industry, Govt. of India, depending upon the
D           size of the Industrial undertaking i.e. small, medium or large.

            (ii) To get the building plan approved from the competent
            authority.

E           (iii) to gel sanction letter from the Financial Institution/ banks for
            financing the project.

             (iv) To supply .list of plant and machinery alongwith quotations.

             (v) To supply to Haryana State Electricity Board of release of Jn
F            electric connection to the proposed site. 1'

           Para 3 provides that the first respondent was to communicate his
    acceptance of the provisional allotment \vithin the time specified therein.
    In case of non-receipt of acceptance it \Vas treated to have been \Vithdra\vn.
    In case the acceptance was received \vithin 30 days from the date of the
G   receipt of the provisional allotment, the PLA would be valid for a period
    of 90 days in case the project is under self-financing and 180 days in case
    he proposes to raise loan from HFC/Banks/All Indian Financial Institu-
    tions. In that event, he was required to furnish proof of having completed
    required formalities listed in para 2 to the satisfaction of the Authority. He
H   wa' also required to deposit security equivalent to 10% of the cost of the
                               HUDAv. HARSHJAIN                                785

     land which would be refundable on implementation of the project. The             A
     security shall also stand forfeited if the construction was not started within
     three months from the date of the production of sanction or of two years
     after issue of the allotment letters. Clause 5 is relevant which is as under :

             •Tn case the pre-requi~itc forn1alities as envisaged in para 3 are
                 11



             completed within the stipulated period, the price mentioned in           B
             para 2 will be charged at the time of issue of final letter of
             al1otn1cnt. Ho\vevcr, in case an extension of time-has been sought
             for completion of formalities the rates prevalent at the time of issue
             of final letter of allotment shall be charged."

           Clause 8 says that PLA shall stand withdrawn automatically after
                                                                                      c
     expiry of period n1cntionec.l in para 4 above \Vithout any further reference
     and no correspondence in this regard will be entertained.

            It is not in dispute that the first respondent had proposed to start an
     industrial unit on obtaining finance from Industrial Financial Corporation. D
     It would appear that he had submitted his application to the Financial
     Institution for sanction of the lan<l on the last date of 180 days, na1ncly,
     April 5, 1992 and he sought for extension of time. The appellant had
     granted extension subject to the respondent paying at the rate of Rs. 1. per
     sq. yard per month by proceedings dated May 14, 1992. The respondent
                                                                                    E
     did not pay the e}.tension fee. The appellant, therefore, had declined to
     accept the request of the respondent by proceedings dated July 7, 1992 for
     further extension of time to pay the exte.nsion fee. In the meanwhile, the
     rates of the land had increased to Rs. 192.45 per sq. yard as on July 31,
     1992. The final letter of allotment had thereafter came to be issued to the
     first respondent on November 23, 1992 calling upon him to pay at that rate F
     in a sum of Rs. 9,20,680.80. The respondent had challenged the legality of
     the demand made by the appellant in filing the above writ petition. The
     High Court has directed the appellant to collect at the rate of Rs. 60.50 as
     per the PLA. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

            Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that in G
     terms of para 5 of the PLA, the respondent was bound to pay since he had
     not complied with the formalities under PLA in paras 2 and 3. Consequent-
     ly, the High Court was wrong in directing the appellant not to collect the
     rate prevailing as on the date of the final letter of allotment. The learned
     counsel for the respondenL' contended that the Government had changed H
..
    786                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   its policy as on September 21, 1991 directing that even in case of non-
    compliance of the conditions in paras 2 and 3, the authorities should collect
    at the rates prevailing as on the date of issue of PLA since the plots
    remained not allotted and re-cycling of the finance gets stagnated and,
    therefore, the necessary allotment should be made only at the rate as on
B   dated of issue of PLA. In support thereof, the learned counsel sought to
    place reliance on two letters, one by the Commissioner; Industries,
    Haryana and another letter addressed by the Deputy Director, Land
    Acquisition to the Director of Industries, Haryana. We have carefully
    scanned through the above two letters. These two letters were also relied
    upon by the High Court to conclude that the appellant is bound by the
C   direction issued by the Government. A reading of the order passed by the
    Commissioner of Industries, Haryana dated June 15, 1993 would show in
    para 5 that the cost of the land communicated to the applicants in the
    LOl/PLA should remain unchanged during the extended period given to
    any applicant. In other words, it would mean that the order came lo be
D   pa<Sed on June 15, 1993 with the above direction. It was endorsed to the
    authorities on June 21, 1993. Therefore, the directions to charge at the
    unchanged prices during the extended period would be applicable to those
    cases where the extension was to be completed after the aforesaid date but
    not to those which have already been finalised. It is not in dispute that final
    letter of allotment was issued to the first respondent on November 23, 1992
E   by which date the prices of the land had been increased as on June 30,
    1992 at the rate of Rs. 192.45 per sq. yard. Under these circumstances,
    the High Court was not right in directing the appellant to collect the prices
    of plot at Rs. 60.50 per sq. yard.

          The appeal is accordingly allowed. Time is extended for payment of
F   the amount with interest al 10% as given in the final letter of allotment for
    a period of 5 months from today. In case the first respondent does not pay
    the amount within the time specified, the writ petition would stand dis-
    missed without further reference. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                       Appeal allowed.