Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Ram vs Haryana State Agricultural Market ... on 6 May, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 13.03.2024
Pronounced on: 06.05.2024
1) CWP No.7969 of 2018
Devi Ram ....Petitioner
V/s
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ....Respondents
2) CWP No.8028 of 2018
Raj Kumar Saini ....Petitioner
V/s
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. By way of the instant judgment, we propose to decide the two
writ petitions afore titled since the issue involved is identical. The facts,
however, are being primarily derived from CWP-7969-2018, titled as Devi
Ram vs. Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and others.
2. The petitioner is allottee of shop/site in the New Grain and
Vegetable Market, Sector-16, Faridabad. Auction was conducted on
26.02.1999, which was approved on 11.12.2007 and consequently, vide
letter of allotment dated 01.02.2008, the petitioner was allotted shop/site
No.20. The total sale consideration was Rs.15,82,000/-. 25% of the said
price amounting to Rs.3,95,500/- was deposited as bid cost. The remaining
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
75% of the amount, i.e. Rs.11,86,500/- was to be paid either in lump-sum
without interest within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the
allotment letter or in 6 half yearly installments along with interest @ 15%
per annum. Failure to deposit the amount would entail penal interest @ 4%
per annum to be compounded half yearly, which was to be charged in
addition to normal interest.
2(ii) As regards petitioner Raj Kumar Saini (in CWP-8028-2018),
the auction was conducted on 16.09.2008, which was approved on
09.11.2008 and consequently, Shop/Site No.104 in the New Grain and
Vegetable Market, Sector-16, Faridabad was allotted to him vide allotment
letter dated 01.01.2009. The total sale consideration was Rs.1,01,10,000/-.
25% of the allotment price amounting to Rs.25,27,500/- was paid as bid cost
and the other conditions for payment of the remaining 75% amount were the
same.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in both the petitions
eventually paid the entire sale consideration along with compound interest
and penal interest.
3(ii) The claim of the petitioners is that the development works in
the New Grain and Vegetable Market, Sector-16, Faridabad were not
completed when the offer of possession was made and that they were
completed subsequently and under the circumstances, no compound interest
or penal interest could have been charged. It has been averred that despite
representations dated 20.10.2009 and 02.08.2011 (Annexures P-2 and P-4,
respectively) having been submitted for completion of development works,
no action was taken.
3(iii) Reference in the writ petition has been made to Rule 5 of the
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale of Immovable Property)
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
Rules, 2000 (as amended on 05.03.2002) (hereinafter referred to as "the
2000 Rules"). As per which the possession of the shop/site could be offered
to the allottee within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of allotment
letter, if minimum basic facilities i.e. roads, water supply, electrification
were existing and if the said basic facilities were not existing then
possession would be provided after providing the said facilities.
3(iv) Reliance in the writ petition has also been placed upon a
judgment of a coordinate Bench in the case of Sumer Singh vs. Haryana
State Agricultural Marketing Board and others (CWP-3292-2012, decided
on 11.02.2014) (Annexure P-5) and judgment dated 28.08.2002 passed in
CWP-248-2002 titled as Om Parkash and others vs. Haryana State
Agricultural Marketing Board and another.
3(v) It has further been averred in the writ petition that the judgment
in the case of Sumer Singh (supra) was complied with by the respondents
vide order dated 29.08.2014 (Annexure P-6).
4. The writ petitions have been opposed by way of replies filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, by the Secretary-cum-Executive Officer,
Market Committee Faridabad. Certain preliminary objections with regard to
disputed questions being involved; no representation having been served
upon the respondents; the petitioners have approached the Court with
unclean hands and after a huge delay and the petitioners having no locus
standi to maintain the petitions etc. have been raised.
4(ii) On merits, the factum of allotment of shops/sites etc. has been
admitted. It has, however, been denied that no development work has taken
place in the New Grain and Vegetable Market, Sector-16, Faridabad. It has
been averred that the interest penal or otherwise has been charged as per the
terms of the allotment letter. Reference has been made to Rules 4(5) and
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
4(6) of the 2000 Rules, wherein the provision of interest and compound
penal interest has been made. It has been averred that the case of the
petitioner(s) is not covered by the case of Om Parkash (supra) and Sumer
Singh (Supra) since in those cases, the basic amenities were not provided
till 2012, whereas allotments in those cases were made in the year 2008.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submitted that the case of
the petitioner(s) is covered by the judgment of the coordinate Bench in
Sumer Singh (supra) and Om Parkash (supra) and there is absolutely no
distinction between the case of the petitioner(s) and the cases under
reference. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that
under the circumstances, the petitioner(s) also deserves to be granted the
same relief.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents
submitted that the cases of the petitioner(s) are hit by delay and laches since
the same were filed in the year 2018, whereas the allotments were made in
the year 2008/2009.
6(ii) Learned counsel submitted that the entire payment was made by
the petitioner(s) without any protest and, therefore, they cannot be now
permitted to turn around and contest the payment of the said amount.
6(iii) Learned counsel further submitted that all development works
had been carried out well in time and, therefore, the petitioner(s) cannot
contend that they were not liable to pay the interest and compound penal
interest.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties.
7(ii) The allotment of shops/sites to the petitioner(s) is not disputed.
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
The payment of the entire sale consideration is also admitted. It is
worthwhile to notice that the dispute pertains to allotment of shops/sites in
the New Grain and Vegetable Market, Sector-16, Faridabad. It was in this
very market that the shops/sites had been allotted to the petitioner(s) in the
case of Sumer Singh (supra). In that case also, the auction was held on
06.08.2008 and the allotment letter was issued on 01.01.2009. The
contention of the respondents that the development works had not been
carried out in the case of Sumer Singh (supra), but had been carried out in
the present case is, therefore, devoid of merit and is outrightly rejected.
There is nothing on record to show that the development works were carried
out in the same very vegetable market in different areas at different times.
There were clear cut findings in Sumer Singh's case (supra) with regard to
the development works and interpretation of Rules 4(5) and 5 of the 2000
Rules. Reference was also made to Rule 5 of the 2002 Rules and thereafter,
it was categorically held that the petitioner was not liable to pay any penal or
compound interest. The coordinate Bench concluded as under:-
"[8]. The provisions contained in 2000 Rules including
the amended one which came into force w.e.f. 05th March,
2002, have been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Anr. Vs.
Raj Pal, AIR 2011 SC, 1394 laying down as follows:-
"11. In view of the principles laid down in
Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association (supra)
Shantikunj (supra) and Amarjeet Singh (supra), it
is clear that the allottees cannot postpone the
payment of instalments merely on the ground that
some of the amenities were not ready. If they were
not entitled for postponement of the instalments, it
follows that they will be liable to pay the
normal interest on the delayed instalments up to
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
date of payment. However, having regard to the
fact that the Rules did not contemplate compound
interest and penal interest and the Market
Committee was yet to complete certain
infrastructural work like water, sewerage
disposal, as held in Shantikunj (supra), the Market
Committee will not be entitled to claim any
compound interest or penal interest".
[9]. In Raj Pal's case [supra], the resolution passed by
the respondent-Board granting concession and to levy normal
interest even in respect of the allotments made after the
amended Rules came into force w.e.f. 05th March, 2002, was
also taken notice as is evident from Para 13 of the report
which reads as follows:-
"13. As it is stated that in case of Mahem Grain Market,
the Board has given some concession even in regard to the
normal interest with effect from the date (5.3.2002) when
the amended rules came into force, it is open to the
respondent-allottees to give a representation to the Board
or pursue their pending representation in that behalf for
similar relief. The decision in these appeals will not come
in the way of the Board considering such representation
and granting appropriate relief. Having regard to the
fact that we have permitted the Market Committee to
issue revised demands, we request the Board to dispose of
the representation of the respondents expeditiously so
that the decision thereon can be taken note of by
the Market Committee for finalizing the demand".
[10]. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition, has
also referred to an order dated 12th March, 2008 passed by
the then Chief Administrator of the respondent-Board in a
bunch of appeals which had arisen out of the allotments made
by the respondents in Faridabad. The operative part of the
said order says that:-
"In view of the facts and circumstances of these cases and
for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals filed by the
appellants are accepted to the extent that the orders
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
passed by the E.O.-cum-Secretary, Market Committee,
Faridabad are modified to the effect that the respondent
Committee shall not charge interest and penal interest in
respect of the plots of the appellants w.e.f. the issuance of
Govt. notification dated 5.3.2002 till the date of providing
the facilities of water supply and sewerage in the New
Grain and Vegetable Market, Faridabad.
Accordingly, the respondent Committee shall make
the calculations of the outstanding dues in respect of the
plots of the appellants afresh within a period of one month
from the receipt of this order and intimate same to the
appellants. The appellants shall make the payments
accordingly within a period of one month from the date of
intimation about the outstanding dues in respect of their
plots failing which the Committee shall be at liberty to
take necessary action regarding resumption of plots as per
terms and conditions of the allotment letters. The present
appeals are disposed of accordingly".
[11]. In the light of the above reproduced Rules,
coupled with the cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the instance[s] of the appellate order[s], it is contended
on behalf of the petitioner and rightly so that no penal or
compound interest could be levied on the petitioner even if
there was delay in payment of installments. As regard to
simple interest, it is urged that in view of the general
resolution passed by the Board as noticed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Raj Pal's case [supra], coupled with the
concession granted to other similarly placed allottees by the
Chief Administrator, the petitioner is held entitled to seek
parity and consequential concession in the matter of interest.
[12]. True it is that the respondents have come up with
a specific plea that the minimum facilities were actually
provided to the petitioner or other allottees to enable them to
run the business in the New Vegetable Market. The affidavit
filed by the Estate Officer of the Market Committee candidly
acknowledges the fact that sewerage and water supply were
provided in the year 2012 only. If that is so, it appears
difficult to accept outrightly that all the basic amenities,
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
essential to run the day-to-day business activities, were in
place in the year 2009 when possession was offered to the
petitioner. It is equally true that the petitioner is liable to pay
simple interest only on the post-poned payments for the
allotted site. However, he can not be held liable to pay penal
or compound interest. Similarly, if there is a general
resolution passed by the Board granting some concession in
the interest component to all its allottees and the petitioner is
also one of them, i.e., if his case is not distinguishable from
others, he may also be entitled to the benefits under the said
resolution.
[13]. For the reasons aforementioned, we allow this
writ petition in part and hold that the petitioner, in the given
facts and circumstances of the case, is not liable to pay penal
or compound interest. Similarly, if any general concession
has been extended by the Board to the similarly situated
allottees, the petitioner would also be entitled to seek parity.
Let the matter be accordingly reconsidered and the
petitioner's liability to pay interest component be re-
determined accordingly within three months. Needless to say
that if on reconsideration, the petitioner is entitled to any
refund, the same shall be made to him within one month
thereafter."
7(iii) This judgment was complied with/implemented by the
respondents and an order dated 29.08.2014 was passed, holding that only
simple interest @ 15% per annum would be charged upon the balance
installments and the other interest was waived off.
7(iv) Another such allottee Dulari Devi also knocked the doors of
this Court by way of CWP-25509-2015, which was decided by a coordinate
Bench on 16.02.2017 in terms of the judgment in the case of Sumer Singh
(supra) and it was ordered that the refund, if any, to which the petitioner
was entitled to would be made within a period of three months.
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061795-DB
and another connected matter
8. In our considered opinion, the present writ petitions are
squarely covered by the judgment in Sumer Singh's case and Dulari Devi's
case (supra). No doubt, the petitioners are late in approaching this Court.
However, this alone is not a sufficient ground to non-suit the petitioner(s)
once there is a categoric decision by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
which the issue has been settled. Even otherwise, Dulari Devi's case
(supra) was decided on 16.02.2017 and the instant writ petitions were filed
in the year 2018.
9. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petitions are allowed.
It is held that the petitioner(s) would not be liable to pay compound interest
and penal interest. The matter be accordingly reconsidered and the interest
component be re-determined accordingly within a period of three months
from today.
10. Needless to say, if on reconsideration of the issue, the
petitioner(s) are entitled to any refund, the same be made to them within a
period of one month thereafter.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Reserved on: 13.03.2024
Pronounced on: 06.05.2024
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
