Mohan Lal and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

B.S. Dhillon and M.R. Sharma, JJ.—This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 1760 and 1761 of 1976 as common questions of law are involved in both these petitions.

The Petitioners were allotted two plots in Mandi Sirsa and the terms and conditions of allotment have been mentioned in the allotment order. Since the Petitioners failed to pay the due instalments in accordance with the terms of allotment, the plots, allotted to the Petitioners were resumed, by the order of the Administrator, New Mandi Townships, Haryana, dated December 13, 1971 in C.W.P. No. 1760. Copy of this order is appended as Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. It is not disputed that in C.W.P No. 1769 the Petitioners had already paid a sum of Rs. 34, 125/- towards the payment of the price of the plot, which amount was also ordered to be forfeited by the impugned order. The building built by the Petitioners on the plot was also forfeited. The Petitioners filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, against this order. Commissioner vide his order dated March 29, 1972, accepted the appeal holding that if the Petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 85, 704. 72 which amount includes penalty of Rs. 14,284.12 the plot shall not be resumed and in case the Petitioners are unable to pay the amount as stipulated in the order, the building and site shall stand resumed. A copy of the order passed by the Commissioner is appended as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The revision petition filed by the Petitioner before the Financial Commissioner was dismissed vide his order dated March 15 1976, of which Annexure P-4 is a copy appended with the writ petition.

The impugned proceedings were taken u/s 13 of the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Act, 1910 hereafter referred to as the old Act. However, curing the pendency of the revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner the Punjab New Mandi Townships (Development and Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1973, (here in after referred to as the Amended Act) came in to operation. Section 8 of this amended Act deals with the validation of the actions taken under the provisions of the old Act. The provisions of Section 13 of the old Act also stand substituted by the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act. It has been provided in the substituted Section 13 that forfeiture of the amount paid shall in no case exceed ten per centum of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the site or building, or both, as the case may be. The provisions of the validation clause make it clear that if the action taken under the old Act is in keeping with the provisions of the Amended Act, in that case the proceedings shall be valid. In the present case, it is not disputed before us that the penalty levelled by the Commissioner in appeal exceeds 10 per centum of the total price of the plot He has levelled a penalty of Rs. 14,284.12. The order passed by the Commissioner, therefore, is not in keeping with the provisions of the substituted Section 13 of the Amended Act and therefore, the validation clause has not validated these proceedings. It may also be pointed out that under the provisions of the substituted Section 13 a building constructed on the plot cannot be resumed, but the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that if the Petitioners are unable to pay the amount stipulated therein, the plot alongwith the building shall stand resumed. In that regard also, the order of the Commissioner is against the provisions of the Amended Act. In this view of the matter the orders of the learned Commissioner and the learned Financial Commissioner are against the provisions of law and the same are hereby quashed.

Mr. Anand Swaroop, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioners are prepaid to pay 10 percent of the price of the plot as penalty, in lieu of the forfeiture of the plot and further they are prepared to pay all the amount due along with interest etc in accordance with terms of allotment, so that the plot and building may continue to belong to them. In view of the fact under the Amended Act maximum penalty to the extent of 10 percent of the price of the plot can be levied, which the Petitioners are prepared to pay, we do not consider it proper to send the case back to the learned Commissioner for passing appropriate order We accordingly direct that the Petitioners should pay 10 percent of the price of the plot as penalty, the same being Rs. 9,100/- plus the remaining instalments along with interest, in accordance with the terms of allotment, which amount shall be calculated by the Administrator. The Petitioners shall deposit the whole amount within a month from the date when the Administrator intimates the total amount due from them including the penalty. We order accordingly.

As regards C.W.P. No. 1761 of 1976, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is no merit in this petition. The plot in question has been resumed in accordance with law. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to show that the impugned action is in contravention of the provisions of the Amended Act. In view of the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, all actions taken under the Old Act has been validated and only the actions which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Amended Act can be held to be invalid. We may further observe that therein the Petitioners did not deposit even a single penny towards the payment of the price of the plot allotted to them. It is also not disputed that no penalty has been levied by the impugned order. In these circumstances, the orders passed under the provisions of the Old Act have been validated by Section 8 of the Amended Act.

The learned Counsel further contends that notices were not served on all the Petitioners. We do not find any merit in this contention as we find from paragraph 8 of the petition and the averments made in the corresponding paragraph of the return that notices ware served on the Petitioners on the dates mentioned in the said paragraph of the return. In any case, one of the Petitioners, namely, Sagan Lal was served with a notice on July 17, 1971 and it was his duty to in from his other brothers. There is no merit in this contention also as such. Dismissed.