Parmjit Singh & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.(Oral)

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned calculation and demand of additional price @ Rs. 7845/- per square yards or Rs. 9382 per square meters towards enhanced compensation as assessed in the 38^th Meeting of Authority vide agenda Item No. 38.18 (Annexure P-13) along with any consequential demand from petitioners who are allottees of residential plots in Sector 83 Alpha, IT City Scheme, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent-GMADA has raised an additional demand on the basis of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, whereby it is so provided that in case of enhancement of the amount as a consequence of land acquisition etc., the aforesaid demand can be raised and can be realized from the allottee. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners do not dispute the power vested in the respondents to recover the enhanced amount but the petitioners dispute the exercise of the power which has taken place in the present case because no such notice has been issued to the petitioners and there has been violation of the principles of natural justice, namely, audi alteram partem. He has also referred to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR (Civil) 89 in this regard.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-GMADA submitted that the demand which has been raised from the petitioners is without any details of the calculation. She further submitted that the aforesaid directions which have been issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh’s case (supra) has not been complied with because no notice has been issued to the petitioners with regard to the same.

We are of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be allowed only on the limited issue that before issuance of a demand notice, the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with and the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench in Surinder Singh’s case (supra) were required to be complied with, which admittedly has not been done in the present case.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned demand notice is hereby set aside. Liberty is granted to the respondent-GMADA to raise a fresh demand after adhering to the principles of natural justice and the directions issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Surinder Singh’s case (supra).

We make it abundantly clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case and the writ petition has been allowed only on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice. It is always within the wisdom of respondent-GMADA to exercise its powers, however in accordance with law.