Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shamsher Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 29 October, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on : 06.08.2024
Pronounced on: 29.10.2024
1) CWP No.14396 of 2024
Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
2) CWP No.15217 of 2024
Karan Nain ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Bawa Karanveer, Advocte for
Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
*****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
1. The petitioner(s) in the afore titled writ petitions are father and
son. The petitioner Shamsher Singh who has preferred CWP-14396-2024 is
the father of petitioner Karan Nain, who has preferred CWP-15217-2024.
For, the issue involved is identical in both the writ petitions, they shall be
disposed of by way of a common judgment. The facts are primarily being
derived from CWP-14396-2024, titled Shamsher Singh vs. State of
Haryana and others, though reference to the facts of CWP-15217-2024
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
shall also be made, wherever necessary.
2. The petitioner Shamsher Singh assails the order dated
21.02.2023 (Annexure P-4), vide which the allotment of Industrial Plot
No.386, measuring 450 sq. mtr. situated in Sector-11, Phase-II, Industrial
Estate, Barwala (hereinafter to be referred to as the "disputed plot") was
cancelled and the order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-9), vide which the
appeal preferred against the said cancellation order was rejected.
3. Pursuant to an application moved by the petitioner, the disputed
plot was allotted to the petitioner vide regular letter of allotment dated
14.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) (for short "the RLA"). The tentative price
indicated in the regular letter of allotment was Rs.1,47,15000/-.
4. As per the petitioner, he had paid a sum of Rs.14,71,500/- as
earnest money, being 10% of the tentative price. As per the terms and
conditions of the RLA, a further sum of Rs.22,07,250/- was to be deposited
by the petitioner, being 15% of the tentative price (to make a total of 25%),
within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the RLA, extendable
by another period of 30 days on payment of interest @ 15% per annum.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that he being 59 years old and a
patient of cardiac disease had to be rushed to Ojas Hospital, Panchkula in the
first week of October, 2022 i.e. on 04.10.2022 where he was managed and
was advised bed rest for a period of two months (Annexure P-2). The
petitioner resumed his routine around 15.11.2022, by which time he had
missed the last date for submission of the acceptance letter and 15% of the
tentative cost, the last date being 13.11.2022. Vide letter dated 21.12.2022
(Annexure P-3), a request was submitted to the respondents to open the
online portal to enable the petitioner to make the payment. It is the case of
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
the petitioner that he had time up to 13.11.2022 to make the payment and the
request was submitted on 21.11.2022 i.e. merely seven days after the last
date of payment but the request did not evoke any response.
6. Instead of opening the link for payment, the allotment was
cancelled vide order dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P-4). Another
representation dated 01.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) was submitted with the
request to accept the payment, followed by yet another representation dated
26.05.2023 (Annexure P-6). In response to the same, vide communication
dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was informed that his
request had not been acceded to.
7. This led the petitioner to prefer an appeal (Annexure P-8) which
too was rejected vide order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-9) leading to the
filing of the instant writ petition.
8. In CWP-15217-2024, the facts are identical. The regular letter
of allotment was issued on 14.09.2022 for an Industrial Plot No.387,
measuring 450 sq. mtr. situated in Sector-11, Phase-II, Industrial Estate,
Barwala. Here, the tentative price was Rs.1,45,35,000/-. In this case also,
on account of non-payment of 15%, the allotment was cancelled vide order
dated 21.02.2023, which was followed by some representations and finally
led to the filing of an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated
24.08.2023.
9. Mr. Arpandeep Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Ankur Mittal, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, who had caused
appearance on advance copy having been served and Mr. Bawa Karanveer,
Advocate, learned counsel representing respondents No.4 and 5, who had
also caused appearance on advance copy having been served, were heard.
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
10. It was strenuously urged by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the action of the respondents in cancelling the disputed plot and
thereafter the appeal is illegal and arbitrary and accordingly deserves to be
set aside. It was submitted that the non-payment of 15% of the tentative
price was on account of unforeseen circumstances which the petitioner faced
with on account of his ill health and after lapse of just about a week, a
request was duly submitted to the respondents to permit the petitioner to
make the payment but the respondents, in an illegal manner, did not accede
to the request of the petitioner and cancelled the plot.
11. It was submitted that the impugned orders are violative of the
provisions of the Estate Management Procedure 2015 (for short "EMP-
2015") and Clause 6.2 of Chapter 6 thereof, as per which, on account of non-
payment of dues, resumption of plots/sheds would be resorted to after
following the due procedure. It was submitted that in the present case, no
such procedure had been followed and the plots had been cancelled/resumed
only on the ground of non-payment of dues without following the due
procedure. It was submitted that under the circumstances, the action of the
respondents is grossly violative of the principles of natural justice and
accordingly deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that as per
Clause 6.3 (c) of EMP-2015, there were ample powers with the respondents
to allow the appeal and give further time for payment which also was
illegally declined.
12. It was further submitted that the findings given by respondent
No.1 while dismissing the appeal that the petitioner had failed to approach
the respondents within a period of 180 days from the date of issuance of the
RLA for redressal of his grievances are false and contrary to the record
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
because the RLA was issued on 14.09.2022 and the first representation was
filed on 21.11.2022 i.e. much before the lapse of 180 days. It was submitted
that the cancellation had been done in a routine and mechanical manner and
the impugned orders also do not give any reason much less a valid reason for
the cancellation.
13. Per contra, it was submitted by learned counsel representing the
respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and that the
action of cancellation of the disputed plot had been taken in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the RLA. It was submitted that there was no
requirement of issuing a notice to the petitioner and following the procedure
envisaged in the EMP-2015, because the said procedure would be applicable
in a case of resumption, whereas this was a case of cancellation on account
of default in submission of letter of acceptance and payment of 15% of the
tentative price.
14. Referring to the medical condition of the petitioner, it was
submitted that the documents annexed with the writ petition do not show
that the petitioner was in such a situation that the payment could not have
been made. It was submitted that the son of the petitioner could have made
the online payment and that on account of the payment not having been
made, the allotment was rightly cancelled in terms of the provisions of the
RLA.
15. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, we find no merit in the writ petitions. The RLA was issued on
14.09.2022. The tentative price was Rs.1,47,15000/- (one crore forty seven
lakh fifteen thousand). As per Clause 2(i), a letter of acceptance was to be
submitted by the petitioner in token of having accepted the allotment of the
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
disputed plot including the terms and conditions contained in the RLA and
as stipulated in Appendix-A thereof. Clause 2(ii) laid down that along with
the letter of acceptance, a sum of Rs.22,07,250 (twenty two lakh seven
thousand two hundred fifty only) being 15% of the tentative price was to be
deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the RLA,
which was further extendable by another 30 days with interest @ 15% per
annum for the extended period. Upon deposit of this amount, 25% of the
tentative price would be deposited (10% having been deposited as earnest
money). For the further amount, provisions were made. As per Clause 2(iii),
in the event of failure to submit the letter of acceptance along with the
payment of 15% of the tentative price within the period provided for, the
allotment was to lapse automatically and the case was thereafter to be dealt
with as per the provisions of the EMP-2015.
Clauses 2(i), 2(ii) and 2(iii) of the RLA read as under:-
"2. AND WHEREAS the allotment, among other terms and
conditions, contained in Appendix-A, is subject to following
conditions precedent to the fulfilled by you within the stipulated
period:
i. You are advised to carefully go through the contents of the
RLA, as well as the terms & conditions stipulated in the Appendix-A.
You shall be required to submit the Letter of Acceptance, in
Appendix-B, duly signed (each and every page), in token of having
accepted the allotment of above noted Industrial Plot, including the
terms & conditions contained hereunder and as stipulated in
Appendix-A;
ii. Alongwith the letter of acceptance, in Appendix-B, you
shall also be required to remit a sum of Rs.2207250.00 (Rupees
Twenty Two Lakh Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) to
HSIIDC as per prescribed procedures towards 15% of the tentative
price of the aforesaid Industrial Plot, so as to make it 25% thereof,
thereof after including Rs.1,471,500.00/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakh
Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards 10% earnest
money (excluding non-refundable progressing fee), already paid by
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
you at the time of submission of application. The amount towards
15% of the tentative price shall be payable by you within a period of
30 days from the date of issuance of RLA, further extendable by 30
days with interest thereon@ 15.00% p.a. for the extended period.
Further additional 25% of the tentative price of the aforesaid
Plot/Shed amounting to Rs.3,678,750.00 (Thirty Six Lakh Seventy
Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty) shall be payable by you
within 60 days of date of issuance of RLA, without any interest. In
case of delay in depositing the said 25% price of the plot beyond 60
days, delayed interest @ 15.00% p.a., as amended from time to time,
for the period of delay beyond 60 days shall be payable by you which
shall be compounded on the installment dates. The balance 50% of
the tentative price of the plot shall be payable in four equal half
yearly instalments within two years from the date of issuance of
RLA due on 30th June and 31st December each year. Interest @12%
pa (or as amended from time to time) on the balance amount shall
be payable along with the instalment, from the date of offer of
possession. In case of lumpsum payment of 75%/50% price of
plot/shed, the following rebate structure shall be admissible:
a. In case of full payment of plot cost, without interest, within
45 days of issuance of RLA (dare of issuance of RLA to be
excluded), the allottee shall be entitled for 10% rebate on plot
cost. The allottee shall have to make payment of 15% price of
the plot within 30 days without interest or within 45 days with
interest, as per terms of allotment;
b. In case of full payment of plot cost, without interest, within
90 days of issuance of RLA (date of issuance of RLA to be
excluded), the allottee shall be entitled for 5% rebate on piot
cost. The allottee shall have to make payment of 15%/25%
price of the plot within 30/60 days without interest or within
60/90 days with applicable interest, as per terms of allotment;
c. In case of full payment of plot cost within 120 days of
issuance of RLA (date of issuance of RLA to be excluded),
the allottee shall be entitled for 3% rebate on plot cost, but
shall have to pay interest on balance 50% price of the plot
from the date of issuance of RLA. The allottee shall have to
make payment of 15%/25% price of the plot within 30/60
days without interest or within 60/120 days with applicable
interest, as per terms of allotment;
d. In case of full payment of plot cost within 150 days of
issuance of RLA (date of issuance of RLA to be excluded),
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
the allottee shall be entitled for 1.50% rebate on plot cost, but
shall have to pay interest on balance 50% price of the plot
from the date of issuance of RLA. The allottee shall have to
make payment of 15%/25% price of the plot within 30/60
days without Interest or within 60/150 days with applicable
interest, as per terms of allotment.
e. There will be no rebate upon lump sum payment after 150
days;
iii. In the event you fail to submit the Letter of Acceptance,
together with payment towards 15% price to make up 25% of the
tentative price of the aforesaid Industrial Plot, within 30 days from
the date of issuance of RLA or with interest thereon @ 15.00% p.a.
within further extendable period of 30 days, please note that in such
eventuality, this allotment shall automatically lapse after the expiry
of above stipulated period of 60 days; and the case shall be dealt as
per the provisions of EMP-2015 as amended from time to time."
16. Clause (vi) dealt with default in payment of installments and
provided that if the installments were not paid as per the terms and
conditions, the plot would become liable for resumption:
"vi. Default in payment of installments shall, however, entail
payment of delayed payment interest @ 15.00% p.a. for the defaulted
period on the amount in default, compounded half yearly. In case
you continue to be in default in making the payment beyond
permitted period as per clause 2(v) above, the industrial plot shall
become liable for resumption."
17. Admittedly, the 60 days period (after including additional 30
days which could have been availed for payment with interest @ 15%)
expired on 13.11.2022. The first communication on record from the
petitioner was on 21.11.2022 i.e. after the lapse of the said period. The said
communication also makes an interesting reading. It nowhere mentioned
about the ill health of the petitioner. It only says that since the petitioner was
new to the HSIIDC payment and rules, he was not able to find the last date
of 15% payment and, therefore, requested for opening of the link. It is,
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
therefore, clear that the ground of the petitioner having fallen ill is not a
genuine ground but has been set up while filing the writ petition to gather
sympathy. Coming to the medical record, it does show that the petitioner is
a heart patient. However, the prescription (Annexure P-2) which is of
04.10.2022 does not mention any bed rest nor does it show any admission in
the hospital. In fact, it mentioned that there was no angina when the
petitioner consulted the doctor. The other record shows that the petitioner
had undergone angioplasty in February 2021 and he remained admitted in
hospital from 13.02.2021 to 16.02.2021. This, in itself, would not be
sufficient to show that the petitioner was prevented at the relevant time from
depositing the amount due.
18. The argument that no notice was issued prior to cancellation
and that the procedure laid down for resumption was not followed is
completely devoid of merit because the petitioner had not reached that stage.
As has been noticed in the preceding paragraphs, the allotment was
automatically cancelled once the letter of acceptance along with 15% of the
tentative price was not deposited. The question of resumption would arise
subsequently if the petitioner defaulted in payment of installments in terms
of Clause 2(vi) of the RLA.
19. The argument that the observation in the appeal that the
petitioner had not approached within 180 days is incorrect because the
petitioner had approached in November 2022 is right on facts. However,
this also would not come to the aid of the petitioner because as per terms and
conditions of the RLA, as have been discussed in the preceding paragraphs,
the petitioner had maximum 60 days for payment of the balance 15% and
not 180 days and, therefore, any erroneous observation by the appellate
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142054-DB
CWP-15217-2024
authority would not help the petitioner.
20. It is well settled that the terms and conditions of the letter of
allotment are binding upon both sides, it being in the nature of a contract
executed between the parties.
21. The cancellation of the disputed plot was in accordance with the
provisions of the RLA. We do not find any illegality in the said action of the
respondents and consequently find no merit in the writ petitions.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Reserved on: 06.08.2024
Pronounced on:29.10.2004
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
10 of 10
