Delhi High Court
Sanjeev K. Bhatia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 6 November, 2012
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 30.08.2012
Judgment delivered on: 06.11.2012
+ WP(C) No. 3464/2010
SANJEEV K. BHATIA ...... Petitioner
Vs
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr.Tarun Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal and Mr. K.A. Singh,
Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. The petitioner, in this case has been seeking the transfer of the land in
issue, being plot no.A-131, situate at Narela Industrial Complex, Narela,
Delhi-110 040 admeasuring 350 sq.mtrs. (in short the plot) in the records of
respondent no.2, and consequent execution of a lease deed in its favour, since
June, 2001. The petitioner has already approached this court twice, once by
way of a writ petition, and the second time, by way of a contempt petition.
Respondent no.2, which is the main contesting respondent, has shown in this
case, as the facts narrated hereinafter would disclose, a complete inability to
convey to the petitioner as to what are the exact charges he is required to pay.
1.1 The plot in issue has been transferred three times over. The petitioner
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 1 of 17
acquired ownership of the plot when it was sold the third time around.
Respondent no.2 had, at one stage, conveyed to the petitioner that he was
required to pay a sum of Rs.73,02,291/- towards unearned increase vis-a-vis
all three transfers which, had taken place qua the plot. This figure was scaled
down to Rs.15,15,693/-, and thereafter, brought down to a further sum of
Rs.6,79,700/- in respect of charges towards unearned increase. In addition, a
sum of Rs.14,22,250/- was sought to be imposed towards interest, calculated
upto 28.04.2010. As of now, though, respondent no.2 is seeking to charge
Rs.11,80,200/- towards unearned increase charges, in addition to interest
amounting Rs.1,70,556/-.
1.2. The aforesaid synoptic view of the matter, is given, to bring to fore the
inability of respondent no.2 to firm up its position on the issue.
2. With the aforesaid preface in place, let me give a brief background as to
how the present writ petition came to be filed in this court.
2.1 The plot in issue, was provisionally allotted on 07.09.1990, to one Sh.
Man Bhawan Singh Jain, by respondent no.2. This allotment was made under
a Development Scheme, which required establishment of an industrial park.
Sh. Man Bhawan Singh Jain, was handed over possession of the said plot on
23.02.1992.
2.2 On 18.04.1994, Sh. Man Bhawan Singh Jain sold the said plot, to one,
M/s. J.M. Sons, for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-. M/s. J.M. Sons, in turn, sold the
said plot, on 07.08.1996, to one Satinder Pal Bhatia, for a sum of
Rs.3,70,000/-.
2.3 Mr. Satinder Pal Bhatia, who is the father of the present petitioner, sold
the said plot, to the petitioner, on 12.06.2001, for a consideration of
Rs.3,90,000/-.
2.4 The petitioner, immediately thereafter, vide letter dated 25.06.2001,
approached respondent no.2, with a request to effect the change in ownership,
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 2 of 17
and convey the charges, if any, he was required to pay, in that behalf. The
said letter evidently was followed by several other letters dated 12.08.2002,
19.04.2005, 07.06.2005, 19.04.2006 and 07.08.2007.
2.5 Evidently, respondent no.2 made no attempt to comply the request
made by the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner built a factory shed,
on the said plot. Consequent thereto, on 27.05.2005, the petitioner got
sanctioned, an industrial electricity connection from the North Delhi Power
Limited (NDPL), vide demand note no.89734. Similarly, the Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD), in its records, has, it appears, mutated the super
structure built on the said plot, in favour of the petitioner. As a matter of fact,
the MCD has also assessed, as on 31.03.2006, the built up area qua the super
structure erected on the said plot for the purpose of payment of property tax.
2.6 The petitioner, claims that he paid, what according to him, were the
requisite dues payable, in the present case, and also, deposited with
respondent no.2, true copies of the original title documents alongwith an
undertaking to pay applicable unearned increase charges.
2.7 In view of what, the petitioner claims, was a case of deliberate
procrastination by respondent no.2 (in not responding to its request for
effecting transfer and conveying the charges to be paid in that regard), the
petitioner, having been left with no choice, approached this court by way of
writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition
was numbered as WP(C) 6841/2007. A single Judge of this court, vide order
dated 21.01.2008, disposed of the writ petition, with a direction to respondent
no.2, to consider the request of the petitioner, in accordance with applicable
policy, subject to the petitioner depositing all lawful charges. Respondent
no.2, was required to do the needful within four weeks, and similarly, the
petitioner was required to pay the requisite charges within the same time
period. On payment of charges and removal of objection, the said respondent
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 3 of 17
was required to pass orders within four weeks, which was required to be
communicated in writing to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner was
aggrieved by the order eventually passed, he was given liberty to challenge
the said order in accordance with law.
2.8 On 04.02.2010, the petitioner had to write to the respondents to comply
with the order of this court dated 21.01.2008. It is claimed by the petitioner
that even though the concerned officer of respondent no.1, requisitioned the
file pertaining to the plot in issue, on 08.02.2008, no orders were passed for
reasons best known to the respondents.
2.9 Respondent no.2, however, claimed that it had issued a letter dated
12.03.2008, to the petitioner, (though, the said letter, has not been placed on
record) whereby, it evidently communicated to the petitioner that, based on
the policy in vogue, the petitioner will have to pay for a single transfer a sum
of Rs.24,34,097/- (as on 31.03.2009), and since, the petitioner was the third
transferee, he was required to pay three times the amount; which was
quantified, as Rs.73,02,291/-.
3. The petitioner, in these circumstances, approached this court for the
second time; albeit by way of a contempt petition, on 02.04.2008. The
petition was registered as : Cont. Cas(C) 207/2008.
3.1 Evidently, while the contempt petition was pending, respondent no.2
issued yet another communication dated 13.05.2008, to the petitioner, which
was in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 13.04.2008. It is in this
letter that, a reference was made by respondent no.2, to its earlier letter dated
12.03.2008. There was also a reference to the fact that, a legal notice had
been issued on behalf of the original allottee Sh. Man Bhawan Singh Jain, and
that, no reply had been received from the petitioner, despite the same being
forwarded to him.
3.2 In the contempt petition, on 19.01.2010, a single Judge of this Court
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 4 of 17
directed the respondents to transfer the plot in issue, in terms of order dated
21.01.2008 within four weeks, failing which respondent shall "lose all
revenue" and it shall, be deemed the plot in issue is owned by the petitioner.
3.3 It is pertinent to note that respondent no.2, sought to explain the delay
by trotting up the excuse that, the original allottee, had raised a dispute by
issuing them a legal notice, in 2008. This court, however, brushed aside the
said ground taken by respondent no.2, and went on to observe that, no
cognizance of a notice issued in 2008 by a person who had been allotted a plot
in issue in 1992, could be taken. The learned Judge observed that, a mere
issuance of a notice in 2008, would not result in creation of any right in favour
of the original allottee.
3.4 Respondent no.2, evidently, was not sure of the unearned increase
charges conveyed by it to the petitioner, and therefore, the issue was re-
visited at the meeting of the Industrial Land Management Advisory
Committee (in short Committee), held on 15.02.2010. The minutes of the
meeting dated 16.02.2010, would show that, apparently, the petitioner was
called to the meeting.
3.5 The minutes also show that, respondent no.2 recognized the fact that,
the petitioner had, intimated to it, the factum of the plot in issue, being
transferred to his name on 25.06.2001. The minutes, also record the fact that,
the demand letter conveying the charges payable by the petitioner, to effect
the transfer of the plot to his name, could not be intimated, because of the
purported dispute raised by the original allottee. Having regard to the orders
of this court passed on 21.01.2008 and 19.01.2010, the respondent no.2
recognized the fact that, qua plot in issue its record had to reflect the name of
the petitioner as the transferee.
3.6 Based on the recognition of the fact that, three transfers had taken place
after the original allotment in 1992 (i.e., on 18.04.1994, 07.08.1996 and
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 5 of 17
thereafter, in favour of the petitioner on 12.06.1996), a decision qua charges to
be levied was taken in the following terms :-
"..After the sales / transactions as per the respective date / year of
execution of the sale, i.e., April, 1994, August, 1996 and June, 2001 as
per provision of Land Management Guidelines. Further,
regularization charges for late intimation will be applicable as per
clause 2(iii) with of Land Management Guidelines with regard to first
and second sale, till June, 2001 i.e., when the present applicant
intimated the transaction. Subject to the payment of the UEI charges
and any other dues as payable in accordance with policy, the branch
concerned may process the case for change of constitution in terms of
the High Court order today itself..."
3.7 Evidently, pursuant to the aforesaid decision taken at the meeting of the
committee, a communication was sent to the petitioner, on the very date when,
the aforesaid meeting was held i.e., on 15.02.2010. In the said communication,
the petitioner was informed that the recommendations of the committee were
being put up before the competent authority for approval and, therefore in the
meanwhile, he should deposit Rs.79,594/- towards other charges; the details
of which were provided in the said communication.
3.8 A formal communication, with regard to the transfer charges payable by
the petitioner, pursuant to the decision taken at the aforementioned meeting of
the Committee, was sent, on 02.03.2010. The petitioner, was directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.15,15,693/-. The amount, was directed to be paid within
a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the said communication;
failing which, interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was to be charged.
3.9 The petitioner, appears to have asked for a break-up of the transfer
charges, quantified at Rs.15,15,693/- vide communication dated 25.03.2010.
Respondent no.2, evidently, vide letter dated 29.03.2010, sent a
communication enclosing therewith a break-up of the charges demanded of
the petitioner. It is important to detail out the break-up, as it would assist in
WP(C) No. 3464/2010 Page 6 of 17
appreciating, why and how the final conclusion is arrived at in this case by
me :-
ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE : SH. M.B.S. JAIN C/80
DATE OF POSSESSION : 23-03-11992 C/113
N.O.C. ISSUED : 27-04-1993 C/127
Date of Document Date of Delay Rate of Total Charges as
Sale Intimati period unearne amount per Land
made on to of d i.e., UEI and
DSIIDC Intimati increas x350
on ed per squ mt. Manageme
sq. mt. nt
Guidelines
Ist To M/s. Agreement 25-06- 7 years C/321 Rs.2,27,500 C/369
Sale J.M. to Sale dt. 2001 1 ii(iii)
Sons 18/4/94 month (80%)
(C/196) 7 days Rs.182000/
-
IInd To Sh. Agreement 25-06- 4 years Rs.780/ Rs.2,73,000 (50%)
Sale Satinder to Sale dt. 2001 10 - (Year Rs.136500/
Pal 7/08/1996 months 96-97) -
Bhatia 18 days
C/190
IIIrd To Sh. Sale 25-06- 13 days Rs.194 Rs.679700 Rs.16993/-
Sale Sanjeev Agreement 2001 1/- 2.5%
Bhati to Sale dt. C/211 (Year
C/183 to 12-06-01 2001-
C/187 02)
11,80,200/ Rs.33,5493 Rs.15,15,693/-
UNEARNED INCREASED : RS.11,80,200.00
REGULARISATION CHARGES : RS. 3,35,493.00
--------------------
RS.15,15,693.00"
---------------------
3.10 Importantly, it would be noted that, both communication dated
02.03.2010 and 29.03.2010 was issued by, one, Mr. V.K. Bhatia, Divisional
Manager (Narela); an officer of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, followed
the aforesaid communication with yet another communication dated
16.04.2010, calling upon the petitioner to pay the said transfer charges as per
its earlier communication dated 02.03.2010.
4. The petitioner, by a letter dated 23.04.2010, made a grievance to
respondent no.2, qua the quantification of the transfer charges. The petitioner,
conveyed to respondent no.2 that, the charges were exorbitant and
unreasonable, and that, he was willing to pay the transfer charges, in
accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, as indicated in the
judgment of this court dated 15.09.2004, passed in WP (C) 3087/2003. A copy
of the judgment in that case, was annexed to the said letter. It would be
important to note that, evidently, in the said case, respondent no.2 had
conceded that, transfer charges were not leviable on each sale, and that, 50%
of the unearned increase was payable, based on the difference in the value of
the plot on the date on which the premium was first paid, and the date of
transfer. It was also observed in said case that since, as per the policy letter of
27.09.2001 rates had been enhanced, the enhanced rates would be charged and
paid; albeit on a single transfer basis.
4.1 However, the aforesaid communication of the petitioner yielded no
result, and consequently on, 28.04.2010, respondent no.2 communicated the
impugned demand to the petitioner vide demand notice of even date. The
impugned demand letter was also issued, pertinently, by Mr. V.K. Bhatia,
Divisional Manager (Narela).
4.2 In the meanwhile, Contempt Case (C) No.207/2008, came up for
hearing before a Single Judge of this court, on 04.05.2010. Having regard to
the fact that a formal demand letter was issued to the petitioner on 28.04.2010,
the petitioner chose to withdraw the contempt petition, and assail, the demand
made, by way of an appropriate remedy.
5. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
5.1 On the very first date, i.e., 20.05.2010, when the writ petition was
moved in this court, the impugned letter dated 28.04.2010 was stayed subject
to the petitioner depositing Rs.6,79,700/- which, he admitted, as the amount
which was payable by him towards transfer charges.
5.2 Thereafter, the matter was listed from time to time. The material date
being : 06.08.2012. On 06.08.2012, when the matter was heard by me, the
stand of the parties was recorded. On that date, I was shown a copy of the
letter dated 13.12.2010 issued by Mr. V.K. Bhatia, Divisional Manager
(Narela) (to whom I have made a reference above) wherein, it was indicated
that having regard to the policy contained in circular dated 05.10.2010, the
"total UEI charges" in the petitioner's case worked out to a sum of
"Rs.21,01,950/-" out of which "Rs.6,79,000/-" having already been paid by
him, he was required to pay, a balance sum of Rs.14,22,250/-. With this
letter, a calculation sheet, showing a break-up of the revised dues, was also
appended. The contents of the calculation sheet are as follows :-
"Revised Dues
Name of Allottee : Mr. M.B.S. Jain (C/80)
Date of Allotment : 27.07.1990 (C/72)
Date of Possession : 24.03.1992 (C/1993)
Date of NOC :
Date of Construction : 25.06.2001 (C/21)
Date of deposit of admitted amount of Rs.6,79,700/- : 28.04.2010
RATE OF INTEREST FOR DELAY PERIOD - 18% P.A.
Date of Sales :
Ist sale to Shri J.M. Sons on 18.04.1994 (C/196)
IInd sale to Sh. Satinder Pal Bhatia on 07.08.1996 (C/190)
IIIrd sale to Sh. Sanjeev Bhatia on 12.06.2001 (C/182)
Details of Date Financi M UEI Rate UEI Delay Interest Total amount
Sales al Year kt. Charges Period amount recoverable
Ra upto
tes 28/04/10
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (6+8)
Ist sale 18/04/ 1994- - 2,27,500/- 2,27,500/ 192.5 6,56,883/- 8,84,383/-
94 95 @ - months
650/sq.mt
.
IInd sale 07/08/ 1996- - 2,73,000/- 45,500/- 165 1,12,613/- 1,58,113/-
96 97 @ months
780/sq.mt
.
IIIrd sale 12/06/ 2001- - 6,79,700/- 4,06,700/ 8 years 6,52,754/- 10,59,454/-
.mt. months
Total 6,79,700/ 14,22,250/ 21,01,950/-
- -
5.3 In so far as, the petitioner was concerned, his counsel took the stand
before me that, having paid the principal amount demanded i.e. Rs.6,79,700/-,
which was obviously towards unearned increase charges, the only issue which
survived was the payment of interest. The interest, as per communication
dated 13.12.2010, was quantified at Rs.14,22,250/-. The petitioner's counsel
submitted that the petitioner would be liable to pay interest, for the period
07.08.1996 to 25.06.2001, since no intimation with regard to second sale had
been issued to respondent no.2.
5.4 It is in this background that on 06.08.2012, Respondent no.2, was
directed by me, to file an affidavit bearing in mind the dates of intimation
given at page 12 of the writ petition, in particular, with regard to intimation of
first sale (which was transacted between Sh. Man Bhawan Singh Jain and M/s.
J.M. Sons). A reference in this regard was made to letter dated 24.11.1994
(sic 24.10.1994), in my order of 06.08.2012.
5.5 It may also be noted that in the first paragraph of my order, there is an
inadvertent reference to the fact that demand, in the impugned letter, towards
unearned increase charges was Rs.21,01,950/-. To be noted, as indicated
above, in the impugned letter the demand raised, towards unearned increase
charges is Rs.15,15,693/- which, by the letter of 13.12.2010 (qua unearned
increase charges) was brought down to Rs.6,79,000/- (To be noted, as per
the table annexed to the said letter the figure apparently ought to be
Rs.6,79,700/-). As noticed above, the figure of Rs.21,01,950/- was in fact :
referred to in the letter of 13.12.2010. The said demand of Rs.21,01,950/- was
inclusive of unearned increase charges of Rs.6,79,700/- and interest
amounting to Rs.14,22,250/-.
5.6. In accordance with the aforementioned directions, contained in my
order of 06.08.2012, respondent no.2 filed an additional affidavit on
29.08.2012. After detailing out the history of the case, in paragraphs 3(k), 4
and 5 of its affidavit, it accepted the fact that, the concerned Divisional
Manager (who as pointed out earlier was, Sh. V.K. Bhatia) had conveyed
through two letters, one dated 03.12.2010, and the other, dated 13.12.2010 (to
which I have already made a reference above) that, the total charges
demanded of the petitioner was a sum of Rs.21,01,950/- which included
unearned increase charges of Rs.6,79,700/- and interest quantified at
Rs.14,22,250/- calculated upto 28.04.2010.
5.7. In the very same affidavit, it is averred that letters dated 03.12.2010 and
13.12.2010, were issued by the said Divisional Manager Mr. V.K. Bhatia,
without formal approval of the Management; specially since the matter was
pending before the court. It is also averred that, it was a clear case of
"negligence" on his part.
5.8 It is, however, admitted in the affidavit that, the said letters are, on the
record of respondent no.2, though there is no noting on the file that the said
Divisional Manager, was authorised to issue, the aforementioned letters. It is
further averred that, after considering the matter, the management had decided
to withdraw the letters dated 03.12.2010 and 13.12.2010.
5.9 It is, however, conveyed by the very same affidavit that since, it has
now come to light that, respondent no.2 had intimation of the first sale, the
amount charged towards regularization charges / interest is scaled down to
Rs.1,70,556/-.
6. In effect, against the total amount of Rs.15,15,693/- which included
Rs.11,80,200/- towards unearned increase and Rs.3,35,493/- towards interest
was now pegged at Rs.13,50,756/-, which included Rs.11,80,200/- towards
unearned increase charges and Rs.1,70,556/- towards regularization charges /
interest.
6.1 Therefore, according to respondent no.2, since the petitioner had
already paid a sum of Rs.6,79,700/-, after adjusting the said sum from the total
charges, quantified at Rs.13,50,756/-, he was liable to pay a sum of
Rs.6,71,056/-. The latest calculations appended to the affidavit dated
29.08.2012 are as follows :-
Date of Sale Date of Period UEI UEI Regularizat Amount
intimati of rate per Amount ion charges
on to intimati sq. mtr. . 350 sq. as per
DSIIDC on mtr. x LMGL
UEI rate
Ist sale To M/s. Agreement to 26.10.94 6 months (1994-95) 227500/- @7.5% 17063/-
J.M. Sons Sale 8 days Rs.650/
C-196/133 18.04.1994
IInd To M/s. Sh. Agreement to 25.06.200 4 year 10 (1996-97) 273000/ @10% for one 136500/-
sale Satinder sale 07.08.1996 1 months Rs.780/- year and 5%
Pal Bhatia 18 days for each 6
C-190 months
IIIrd To Sh. 12.06.2001 25.06.200 13 days (2001-02) 679700/- @2.5% 16993/-
sale Sanjeev 1 1942/-
Bhatia C-
1180200/- 170556/-
Total : 13,50,756.00
Less: Payment received
on 26.05.2010 6,79,700.00
------------------
Balance UEI Rs.6,71,056.00
-------------------
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSELS
7. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that, all that the petitioner was required to pay, if at all,
was the money towards unearned increase charges which, as per respondent
no.2's own communications of 03.12.2010 and 13.02.2010, stood quantified at
Rs.6,79,700/-.
7.1 The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner, if at all was
liable to pay interest for the period 07.08.1996 till 25.06.2001 i.e., for the
second sale. It is submitted that, in so far as, the first and third sales are
concerned, admittedly respondent no.2, as it now transpires was aware of the
same. Special emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the judgment of a single Judge of this court dated 15.09.2004, passed in
WP(C) 3087/2003. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that, respondent no.2 could not have imposed unearned increase charges, on
each sale, as was sought to be done. This according to the petitioner
amounted to unjust enrichment.
7.2 As a matter of fact, in the writ petition, though grounds have been taken
to challenge the imposition of unearned increase, as being violative of Article
265 of the Constitution of India and a reference in this behalf is made to other
concomitant articles and entry 49 in list II of Schedule VII; during the course
of the arguments, it was limited to calculation of appropriate unearned
increase payable by the petitioner and appropriate interest/regularization
charges.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.,2
addressed arguments based on the pleadings filed before the court by the said
respondent. In particular, reliance was placed on the averments made in the
latest affidavit dated 29.08.2012. In sum and substance, it was argued by
learned counsel for respondent no.2 that, transfer could be effected in favour
of the petitioner if, he were to pay the balance sum of Rs.6,71,056/- to
respondent no.2.
REASONS
9. Having heard the learned counsels for parties and perused the record at
great length, according to me the following aspects emerge in the present
case :-
9.1. Respondent no.2 had, in the first instance, vide letter dated 12.03.2008
communicated to the petitioner that he would be liable to pay Rs.24,34,097/-,
(as on 31.03.2009), for each transfer. Since there were three sale transactions
involved, he would have to pay three (3) times the amount i.e., Rs.73,02,291/-
besides other amounts. This stand was reiterated in respondent no.2's letter of
13.05.2008.
9.2. After the meeting of the Committee of 15.02.2010, respondent no.2
drastically scaled down its demand from Rs.73,02,291/- to Rs.15,15,693/-. A
break-up of the transfer charges of Rs.15,15,693/- was supplied to the
petitioner vide letter dated 29.03.2010. The details furnished by the
petitioner showed that, respondent no.2 intended to collect a sum of
Rs.11,80,200/- towards unearned increase charges, in addition to,
Rs.3,35,493/- towards interest / regularization charges.
9.3. Respondent no.2, evidently was, wanting to collect charges towards
unearned increase in terms of a policy letter dated 27.09.2001. What is
required to be noticed is that, all three sale transactions took place prior to
27.09.2001. The last sale transaction, in favour of the petitioner, took place
on 12.06.2001. This stand of respondent no.2 is demonstrable from the
impugned demand letter of 28.04.2010.
9.4. The demand letter of 28.04.2010, was issued by Sh. V.K. Bhatia,
Divisional Manager (Narela), an officer of respondent no.2.
9.5. The very same Divisional Manager i.e., Sh. V.K. Bhatia, admittedly
issued the two letters dated 03.12.2010 and 13.12.2010 whereby, while
scaling down the demand for unearned increase from Rs.11,80,200/- to
Rs.6,79,700/-, he increased the interest / regularization charges to
Rs.14,22,250/-.
9.6. It is admitted in the affidavit filed on 29.08.2012, on behalf of
respondent no.2 that, these letters are on record of respondent no.2.
Respondent no.2, however, has taken the stand that the said letters were
issued without the approval of the Management, specially in the
circumstances that the matter was sub-judice. It was further contended that a
decision was taken to withdraw the said letters. There is no averment
whatsoever in the said affidavit as to when such a decision was taken to
withdraw the said letters, and as to whether, the same was communicated to
the petitioner. There is an eloquent silence, in the affidavit of respondent
no.2, on this aspect of the matter. By the very same affidavit, the respondent
no.2 has reverted to the position of 29.03.2010; albeit with a further
modification. While the unearned increase charges have been maintained at
Rs.11,80,200/-, the interest / regularization charges have been scaled down in
favour of the petitioner, from Rs.3,35,493/- to Rs.1,70,556/-.
9.7. Finally, the record also shows that, the petitioner's reliance on the
judgment of this court dated 15.09.2004 passed in WP(C) 3087/2003 may not
help his cause as respondent no.2 had filed an appeal being : LPA
No.1047/2006 wherein, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal without
examining the issue as to whether respondent no.2 had made a concession
before the learned Single Judge, in view of the fact that, the judgment of the
learned Single Judge had already been implemented. The Division Bench,
confined the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the facts and
circumstances of that case, without it being held as a binding precedent, in
other matters.
10. In view of the above, I have no doubt in mind that, respondent no.2,
will have to be held to the figure of unearned increase charges as
communicated by Sh. V.K. Bhatia, Divisional Manager (Narela). The said
officer has all along communicated with the petitioner; he was, as a matter of
fact, instrumental in issuing letters dated 02.03.2010, 29.03.2010 and
16.04.2010, as also the impugned demand dated 28.04.2010.
10.1 The petitioner, therefore, was entitled to believe that, Sh. V.K. Bhatia
had the ostensible authority to convey to him what were the charges payable
by him towards unearned increase. Apart from this what is pertinent to note,
is that, Mr. V.K. Bhatia has not apparently conjured up the figure but has
placed reliance on respondent no.2's policy circular of 05.10.2010. There is
nothing disclosed in the affidavit of 29.08.2012 which would show as to why
the figure of Rs.6,79,700/-, calculated by Sh. V.K. Bhatia, towards unearned
increase charges was incorrect, and that, the correct amount towards the
unearned increase charges ought to have been Rs.11,80,200/-. Where,
admittedly, Sh. V.K. Bhatia went wrong though, was in, in calculating
regularization / interest charges. Mr. V.K. Bhatia, overlooked the fact
respondent no.2 had knowledge qua the first sale and the third sale. Therefore,
as acknowledged by respondent no.2, the figure of regularization charges /
interest was wrongly calculated in its record. What is, however, disconcerting
is that respondent no.2 kept back these facts, till such time it was directed to
file an affidavit by me. State and its instrumentalities are not, in the pure
sense, adversial litigants. They have a far greater onus, to place on record all
facts as appearing on record, however, inconvenient and unpalatable they may
be. This was not how respondent no.2, approached the matter in the present
case.
10.2. Apart from the above, even otherwise, I find there is merit in the
contention of the petitioner that if, the impugned demand of 28.04.2010, was
based on the policy letter of 27.09.2001, how could it be given effect qua
transactions in which the petitioner was not involved, being the third
purchaser in the entire chain of sale and purchase effected vis-a-vis the plot in
issue. However, this aspect need not detain me, in view of the fact that, the
petitioner has already agreed to pay unearned increase charges to the extent of
Rs.6,79,700/-.
10.3 Thus, having regard to the fact that, the petitioner has also agreed to pay
regularization / interest charges for the period 07.08.1996 till June, 2001
which, respondent no.2 has calculated at Rs.1,70,556/-, all that the petitioner
can be called upon to pay is the said amount. Accordingly, the demand letter
dated 28.04.2010 is quashed. Respondent no.2, is directed to effect transfer of
the plot in issue, in the name of the petitioner, in its record, on the petitioner
paying a sum of Rs.1,70,556/- to respondent no.2 towards regularization
charges / interest within a period of two weeks from today.
10.4 Respondent no.2 is also directed to execute a lease deed, in favour of
the petitioner qua the plot in issue, on payment of the aforementioned amount
and fulfillment of other formalities. Respondent no.2 shall do the needful,
within two weeks, of the petitioner fulfilling the requisite formalities.
11. In addition, respondent no.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-
towards costs to the petitioner. The cost shall be paid within one week from
today.
12. The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2012
yg
