- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Harish Kumar Virja v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
This order disposes of two Civil Writ Petitions involving common questions of law and fact: Civil Writ Petition No. 15867 of 1992 (K.G Prashar and another v. State of Haryana and others) and Civil Writ Petition No. 10437 of 1991, with facts primarily drawn from Civil Writ Petition No. 16437 of 1991 (Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana and another).
In the Harish Kumar Virja petition, the petitioner challenges a demand (Annexure P-1) requiring him to deposit Rs. 21,710/- as an additional price for an allotted plot, based on plot prices prevailing in 1990, despite the original allotment dating back to 1980. The petitioner’s father initially applied for a plot in 1978 and underwent multiple allotment changes and delays, including shifting from one plot to another and confusion regarding possession and cancellation due to discretionary quota issues. The plot was eventually transferred to the petitioner in 1990. The petitioner contends that the demand for additional payment after such delay is arbitrary.
In the K.G Prashar petition, petitioners were allotted a plot in 1985 but did not receive possession and were instead offered an alternative plot. Despite timely payment of installments, they were asked in 1992 to pay an additional Rs. 40,819.15/- based on 1992 prices. The petitioners challenge this demand, arguing they should not be liable for extra payment due to delays caused by the respondents.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondents are justified in demanding additional payment based on the prevailing plot prices at the time of demand, despite significant delays in possession and allotment caused by the respondents themselves.
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable for increased plot prices after a delay in possession when the delay was attributable to the respondent authorities.
- The validity and fairness of shifting petitioners from one plot to another and subsequently demanding additional payment for the alternative plots.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contends that the respondents arbitrarily shifted him from one plot to another over many years without justification.
- There is no justification for demanding additional payment based on the 1990 price when the original allotment was made in 1980.
- The delay and confusion caused by the respondents have caused hardship, and charging increased prices after such delay is unjust.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents do not dispute the facts but state that the shifting of plots was due to compelling circumstances beyond their control.
- They deny the petitioner’s claim for relief on the ground that the changes and demands were necessitated by circumstances.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found the respondents’ demand for an additional Rs. 21,710/- (and similarly Rs. 40,819.15/- in the other petition) wholly unjustified. The Court reasoned that the petitioner and his father were not responsible for the delay or the shifting of plots, which was exclusively within the control of the respondent authorities. Since possession was not delivered in a timely manner and the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to construct a house at the originally allotted price, it was unfair and unreasonable to charge the price prevailing a decade later. The Court recognized the hardship caused by the delay and rejected the respondents’ attempt to impose increased costs on the petitioner, emphasizing the respondents’ responsibility for the delay and shifting of plots.
Holding and Implications
The petitions are allowed. The Court quashed the demand for additional payments as set out in Annexure P-1 in both cases. Respondents were directed not to charge any additional amounts beyond what was originally paid.
In the K.G Prashar petition, the respondents were further directed to give possession of the allotted plot forthwith. In the Harish Kumar Virja petition, possession already delivered by interim order was ordered to be regularized.
No order as to costs was made. The decision directly benefits the petitioners by relieving them of unjust additional financial burden due to delays caused by the respondents. No new precedent was established beyond the immediate relief granted.
V.K Bali, J. (Oral) — This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petitions (No. 15867 of 1992 ‘K.G Prashar and another v. State of Haryana and others, and 10437 of 1991, Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana and another’ (as common questions of law and fact are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 16437 of 1991 (Harish Kumar Virja v. State of Haryana and another.)
2. Harish Kumar Virja seeks writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash Annexure P-1 vide which he has been asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 21710/- in addition to the price already settled for allotting plot to him way back in the year 1980. This extra price is being asked on the sole ground that prices of the plots prevalent in the year 1990, when letter, Annexure P-1, was issued, necessarily require deposit of Rs. 21,710/-.
3. Brief facts of the case reveal that father of petitioner late Shri Mangat Ram Virja applied for allotment of plot measuring 299 sq. meters at Sainik Board, Gurgaon in the year 1978 and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- vide receipt dated October 26, 1978. He was also asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1775/- towards earnest money which was also deposited. On March 27, 1980 he was informed that plot measuring 299 Sq. metres had not come in draw in his favour but he would be accommodated for plot measuring 135 Sq. metres. This offer was accepted by him and resultantly plot No. 1499 measuring 135 sq. metres was offered to him in Sector 17, Gurgaon. However, when he went to take possession of the said plot, he was told by the Engineer concerned that even though the plot existed on the map but in reality it was not there. That being so, he was assured that he would get plot in lieu of Plot No. 1499/17. On September 17, 1988 the Estate Officer intimated to him that he had been allotted plot No. 1263 in Sector 17, Gurgaon in lieu of plot No. 1499, Sector 17, Gurgaon. He was delivered letter of possession on October 6, 1984. The Estate Officer further intimated to him on September 11, 1987 that plot No. 1263 in Sector 17 was cancelled in view of it being allotted under discretionary quota. This confusion was promptly removed by saying that the said plot had been allotted to him as an ex-serviceman and it had not come to him on discretionary quota basis. The same was, however, restored. The mother of petitioner, Smt. Kaushalya Devi, made request to the Estate Officer on January 21, 1991 to transfer the plot No. 1263 in Sector 17 in the name of petitioner, who was in government service and had capacity to raise loan to construct the house. This request was acceded and plot was transferred in the name of petitioner vide letter dated May 10, 1990 which was conveyed to him on September 10, 1990. For long ten years thus nothing happened in the matter and it was only on May 27, 1991 that petitioner to his complete dismay and disappointment received letter Annexure P-1 asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 21710/-. It is this demand, as earlier mentioned, which has been challenged in the present petition styling the same to be wholly arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jain, vehemently contends that there was no justification whatsoever for the respondents to have kept on shifting the petitioner from one plot to another and then ultimately to ask him after ten years of the initial allotment to pay the price that was prevalent in the year 1990.
5. The matter has been opposed and in the written statement that has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the facts as stated in the writ have not been disputed but all that has been stated to deny the claim of petitioner is that it was under compelling circumstances that petitioner or his father had to be shifted from one plot to another.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the action of respondents in issuing letter, Annexure P-1, asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 21,710/- is wholly unjustified. If the plot that was initially allotted to the father of the petitioner was not in existence and was yet allotted to him or if lateron the other plot given to him was not somehow delivered possession of either to the petitioner of his father, it is the respondent-authorities who have to be blamed. Petitioner or his father had no hand in it. The allotment of plot was exclusively in the domain of respondents. If for some reason or the other respondents would not given possession of the plot allotted to the father of petitioner, there was no justification to charge which was prevalent after ten years. On the one hand, petitioner was deprived of taking possession and constructing the house upto 1990, on the other hand, he has been asked to pay more price of the plot. This is a common knowledge that the costs of construction has skyrocketed during the last ten years. The action of the respondents in delaying the allotment of plot to the petitioner has already worked a lot of hardship to him as he will not be able to construct the plot within the cost he would have had the plot been allotted to him in the year 1980. The ordeal of petitioner has increased many fold by charging him the price of the plot prevalent in the year 1990. Thus, finding no justification for the respondents to charge price in addition to what has already been paid by the petitioner, Annexure PI is quashed.
7. In Civil Writ Petition No. 15867 of 1992 (K.G Prashar and another v. State of Haryana and another petitioner were allotted plot No. 712 in the year 1985 measuring 10 Marlas in Sector 14 (II), Karnal. The possession of this plot was not given to them and the same was changed to plot No. 1815 in Sector 9, Karnal. Petitioners had paid all the instalments in time. However, on April 3, 1992, they were asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,819.15/- for alternative plot No. 1815 Sector 9, Karnal. Again the respondents could not offer and actually give possession of plot No. 712 in Sector 14(II), Karnal for which petitioners could not possibly be blamed. Once again in this case as well petitioners were asked to pay the price prevalent in the year 1992. There is absolutely no justification asking the petitioners to cough up an extra amount in this manner after six years.
8. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are allowed and respondents are directed not to charge additional amount as asked by them vide Annexure P1. In Civil Writ Petition No. 15867 of 1992 (K.G Prasher's case), Respondents are directed to give possession of the plot allotted to them forthwith. In Civil Writ Petition No. 16437 of 1991 (Harish Kumar Virja's case) possession was got delivered to the petitioner vide interim orders passed by the Motion Bench and the same is ordered to be regularised. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Petition allowed.
Alert