G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority requiring them to pay enhanced compensation in respect of plots allotted to them by respondent No. 1. Since the issue raised in all the cases is identical, we are deciding these petitions by a common order.
2. FACTS:
CWP No. 13460 of 1992. - In response to the notice issued by respondent No. 1 inviting applications for allotment of residential plots, the petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot. Vide Annexure P- 1 dated 11.9.1984, respondent No. 2 communicated the petitioner allotment of Plot No. 321, Sector 4 at Mansa Devi Urban Complex. As per para 9 of the allotment letter price of the plot was stated to be tentative with a stipulation that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately. The petitioner, had deposited Rs. 11,051/- on 8.2.19,84 and another sum of Rs. 1,6,576.60 on 30th May, 1984 and as per the terms of allotment, he was required to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 82,882.80 in six equal instalments. Possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on 9.9.1991. After about one year of the delivery of possession, the petitioner was Served with the notice Annexure P2 calling upon him to pay the enhanced compensation @ Rs. 27/- per sq. yard. The petitioner has challenged the calculation made in Annexure P2 by contending that he cannot be made to pay for the entire land which include the land reserved for group housing scheme, shopping complex and sector roads and the action of the respondents in demanding enhanced price amounts to depriving the petitioner of his property.
The respondents have opposed the writ petition. By placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Charanjit Bajaj v. State of Haryana and others, 1986 PLJ 601: they have urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the demand for enhanced price. By two additional affidavits filed during the course of hearing, one of Shri O.P. Bhatia, Accounts Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, and the other of Shri D.L.- Bahri, Accounts Officer, Haryana urban Development Authority, the respondents have given the details of the factors which have been taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation on the basis of which enhanced rate of compensation has been demanded from the plot holders.
CWP No. 13104 of 1993. - Smt. Shanti.Devi, mother of the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 733 measuring 502.32 Sq .yards in Sector 15-11, Urban Estate, Gurgaon on 8.6.1.987. The price of the plot was mentioned at Rs.1,39,750/- @ Rs. 278.20 sq. yard. 25% of the price was to be deposited on allotment and the balance was payable in six equal instalments alongwith interest @ 10%. In terms of Clause 9 of the allotment letter price of the plot was described as tentative with the possibility of enhancement due to the enhancement in the cost of land as per the award of the competent authority. Subsequently the plot was allotted in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi and the petitioner. A new letter of allotment was issued on 16.6.1990 but the conditions of allotment were more or less the same. Price of the plot was again termed as tentative. Possession of plot was delivered to the petitioner on 24.1.1992and she paid the tentative price fixed by respondent No. 1. After about a year and six months of the delivery of possession the respondent No. 2 issued letter Annexure P3 calling upon the petitioner to deposit enhanced compensation amounting to Rs. 1,23,220/-i.e. @ 245.30 per sq. yard. The petitioner has challenged the demand of additional price on the ground of violation of the provisions of Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965 and also on the ground that the calculation made by the respondents is patently erroneous. Reliance has also been placed on the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 to show that the demand is arbitrary and unjustified. In the reply filed to be half of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was called upon to deposit enhanced amount vide memo dated 11.12.1991 and as she failed to deposit the same, penalty amounting to Rs.12,320/- was imposed on her vide office memo dated 2.9.1993. The respondents have justified the demand of enhanced price by pleading that the same has been necessitated due to enhancement in the compensation payable to the original land holders.
CWP No. 15108 of 1993. - The petitioners were allotted residential plot Nos. 435 and 225 respectively in Sector 6, Dharuhera vide separate memos dated 27.1.1.989. Price enumerated in the allotment letters was shown to be tentative. The petitioners received notices Annexures P2 and P3 requiring them to pay enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.91, 458.10 and Rs.1,28,081.35 respectively. Petitioners have challenged the demand for enhanced compensation on the same very grounds on which other petitioners have questioned the legality of similar notices.
CWP No. 237 of 1995. - Plot No. 452, Sector 8, Ambala was allotted to the petitioner on 18.10.1989. The price of the, plot was described as tentative. After about five years of allotment the respondents issued notice Annexure P2 demanding-enhanced compensation from the petitioner @ Rs.244.76 per sq. yard. The petitioner has challenged the demand of enhanced compensation on the ground of violation of the natural justice and the provisions contained in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The respondents have defended the impugned notice by asserting that the demand for enhanced compensation has been made on the basis of actual payment made by the respondents to the land holders.
CWP No. 376 of 1995. - Plot No. 717, Sector 15 II was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.6.1987 issued by the Estate Officer. The petitioner was required to pay Rs. 1,39,750/- as tentative price of the said plot. By placing reliance on the conditions of allotment and the provisions contained in the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978 respondent No. 2 has issued notice Annexure P2 calling upon the petitioner to pay the enhanced compensation @ Rs. 245.30 per sq. yard. A second demand notice dated 21.9.1994 has also been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has protested against the demand of enhanced price by contending that he cannot be made to pay for the land which does not form part of the scheme and there is no reason for not realising the enhanced price from the group housing societies etc. In the reply filed by them the respondents have tried to explain the method adopted by them for calculating the rate of enhanced compensation.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. In Charanjit Bajaj v. State of Haryana and Ors.,1 1986 P.L.J. 601 Charanjit Bajaj v. State of Haryana and Ors., C.W.P. 1270 of 1985 (decided on April 10, 1991) : 1992(1) R.R.R. 40 (P & H) (D.B.) and Randeep Singh Surjewala v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr., C.W.P. 510 of 1993, question similar to one raised in these petitions was raised by the petitioners to challenge the demand to enhanced compensation from the petitioners in respect of the plots allotted to them. In its order dated 10th April, 1991, the Division Bench has held that there was no ground for the Court to interfere with the calculation made by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. In Civil Writ Petition No. 510 of 1993 the Court took notice of the stand taken by the respondents and observed :-
'Counsel for the petitioner did not doubt HUDA's rights and authority to demand enhanced price but argued that the enhanced compensation per square yard in fact comes to Rs. 130.61 per square yard and not Rs. 218.80. Petitioner's case is that the total compensation of Rs. 10,29,18,840.00 should be divided by 162.80 being the total number of acres (net area) of the acquired land and not by 85.73 acres which is plotable area.
As against this, the stand taken by HUDA is that for the land measuring 19.20 acres for L.I.C., shopping centre and HUDA land, the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,37,856.00 has been borne by HUDA and the balance amount of Rs.9,07,80,984.00 has been distributed on the plotable area of 85.73 acres. Area of 57.87 acres has been exempted from burden of enhanced compensation having been reserved for roads, parks and other similar amenities which have been provided to the plot-holders in the scheme. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charanjit Bajaj v. State of Haryana and Ors., C.W.P. No. 1270 of 1985 decided on 10.4.1991, wherein it has been held that the areas left for Toads and parks etc. can be exempted from burden of the enhanced compensation by transferring the entire burden of enhanced compensation on the area reserved for plots.
No exception can be taken to the stand taken by the respondents. For the land measuring 19.20 acres which is reserved for L.I.C., shopping centre and HUDA land, the burden of the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,21,37,856.00, has been borne and debited to the account of HUDA.
The plea regarding the discrimination and recovery of entire amount from the plot holders by excluding the area reserved for roads and parks from the burden of enhanced amount is squarely covered by Charanjit Bajaj's case (supra) in which it has been held as under :-
'An additional argument has been raised by Mr. Sarin in C.W.P. No. 16866 of 1989 that the respondents have discriminated against the petitioners and certain other organisations with regard to the burden of sharing of the enhanced compensation and in the case of others, only 55 per cent of the area has been taken into account for getting the balance enhanced amount. This argument is also without force. The residential plot, holders have been given fully developed plots with all amenities like approach roads etc. whereas the organisations aforementioned have been given large area wherein certain area would be left out for the purpose of roads and other civic amenities.'
We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8.7.1986, is sound in all respects and no interference is called for. The present writ petitions are, therefore, allowed in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 8.7.1986. We order accordingly. No other point has been raised.'
5. In K.K. Kalsi and Ors. v. Chandigarh Housing Board, C.W.P. 14042 of 1994 (decided on 13.7.1995), a learned single Judge upheld the method of costing but went on to examine the details of the calculations and directed the Board to reconsider the matter. This order of the learned single Judge has been reversed by a Division Bench in Chandigarh Housing Board v. K.K. Kalsi, L.P.A- 792 of 1995 (decided on 15.3.1996). The Division Bench held that the Court cannot examine the details of the calculations made by the competent authority and investigation into the costing factors and heads of expenditure incurred by public authorities cannot be made in exercise of writ jurisdiction and the Court cannot substitute its own view for the authority.
6. In the Indore Development Authority v. Smt. Sadhna Agarwal and Ors., J.T. 1995(3) SC 1 : 1995(2) 335 (S.C.), their Lordships held that Courts have limited jurisdiction to examine whether decision making process was reasonable, rational or arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
7. Keeping in view the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court, we find no justification to enter into the merits of the calculations made by the respondents for demanding enhanced compensation from the petitioners. However, there appears some justification in the plea of the petitioners that various objections raised by them pointing out that particular amount of compensation paid by the Board cannot be included in the total amount for the purpose of determination of the rate of enhanced compensation have not been decided by the Board and, therefore, they should be directed to consider the points raised by the petitioners and decide the same by passing reasoned orders. We also feel that ends of justice would be met by directing the respondents to consider and decide the points raised by the petitioners against the enhanced compensation.
8. In view of the above, we dispose of the writ petitions by directing the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority to examine the representations made by the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing speaking orders within a period of two months of the submission of certified copy of this order. If any of the petitioners has not made such representation then the writ petition filed by him/her shall be treated as his/her representation.