Notice was issued to the Respondent by the Appellants on 15.01.1993 raising demand of additional price as well as to show cause as to why the plot should not be resumed on account of non-construction within a period of two years of allotment. The learned Trial Court accepted the plea raised by the respondent on the ground that in terms of the conditions contained in the letter of allotment, the demand of additional price could be raised only in case of enhancement in cost of land by the competent authority under Land Acquisition Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent pleaded that in the case in hand, one of the condition in the letter of allotment was that the price of the plot was tentative; the additional price can be demanded only on account of increase in cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act.
It is also the admitted case of the appellant that the land on which the plot was carved out was initially owned by the Animal Husbandry Department of the State which was transferred to the appellant. The relevant clause as contained in the letter of allotment regarding demand of additional price is extracted below: “ Clause 9 :
The above price is tentative to the extend that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately as determined by the authority the additional price determined shall paid within 30 days of its demand.”
The aforesaid clause was interpreted by all the courts below to mean that the additional price can be demanded in case there is enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act.
For filing the present frivolous appeal, in our opinion, the Appellants deserve to be burdened with heavy cost. Courts across the legal system-this Court not being an exception – are choked with litigation.
The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Though the High Court had not granted relief to the allotee, therein however this Court accepted the plea and quashed the demand of additional price from the allottee, interpreting the same condition in the letter of allotment as is in the case in hand. After deposit of the total amount demanded by the defendant- respondents by sending letter No.1300 dated January 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant demanding a sum of Rs.38,400/- to be paid within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of the letter in respect of the above said plot. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant was completed to file the present suit with prayer for a declaration to the effect that the letter dated January 15, 1993 in respect of Plot No 940, Sector 14, Part, Hisar issued by defendant No.2 is illegal, void and liable to be set aside and he also prayed for consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from revoking, reviewing or cancelling the allotment letter issued by the defendants vide Memo
No 21548 dated August 20, 1986 and from taking any action on the basis of the aforesaid letter.
The additional price determined shall be paid within thirty days of its demand.” As per this condition enhancement could be made on the cost of the land as per the award by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It was incumbent on the part of the Haryana Urban Development Authority to substantiate the same by leading proper evidence that the enhancement was effected on account of increase in the price of acquisition of land. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar and confirm the order dated March 27, 1996 passed by the trial court.
No order as to costs.”
The issue sought to be raised before this Court was referring to the letter dated 01/12/1992 which according to the Appellants shows the amount required to be paid by the Appellants to the Animal Husbandry Department for the land transferred to Sector -14, (Part), Hisar. The aforesaid amount shall be recovered by the Appellants from the guilty officers/officials who opined the case to be fit for filing appeal at different levels despite being covered by judgment of this Court. Even that amount also needs to be calculated and recovered from the guilty officers who, despite there being judgment of this Court, dealing with the same issue opined the case to be fit for filing appeals.
//jk-pm//
Case Title: HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. JAGDEEP SINGH (2023 INSC 503)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004709-004709 / 2011
