T.S. Goswami & Ors. Vs. R.K. Nanda & Anr.
EmailAppeal: I.A. No. 3 in contempt petition (C) No. 308 of 1998 in W.P. (C) No. 792 of 1996
(With I.A. No. 3 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 309/98 in W.P. (C) No. 876/96, I.A. No. 5 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 310/98 in W.P. (C) No. 477/98, and I.A. Nos. 23-24 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 311/98 in W.P. (C) No. 113/96.
(With I.A. No. 3 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 309/98 in W.P. (C) No. 876/96, I.A. No. 5 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 310/98 in W.P. (C) No. 477/98, and I.A. Nos. 23-24 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 311/98 in W.P. (C) No. 113/96.
Petitioner: T.S. Goswami & Ors.
Respondent: R.K. Nanda & Anr.
Apeal: I.A. No. 3 in contempt petition (C) No. 308 of 1998 in W.P. (C) No. 792 of 1996
(With I.A. No. 3 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 309/98 in W.P. (C) No. 876/96, I.A. No. 5 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 310/98 in W.P. (C) No. 477/98, and I.A. Nos. 23-24 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 311/98 in W.P. (C) No. 113/96.
(With I.A. No. 3 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 309/98 in W.P. (C) No. 876/96, I.A. No. 5 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 310/98 in W.P. (C) No. 477/98, and I.A. Nos. 23-24 in Cont. Pet. (C) No. 311/98 in W.P. (C) No. 113/96.
Judges: K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa & Syed shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 20, 1999
Head Note:
TOWN PLANNING
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32 – Earlier orders of Supreme Court, resolving controversy regarding cost of land and external and internal development charges – Fresh letter for payment of certain amounts – Plots reserved for economically weaker section and 25% plots reserved for “no profit, no loss” basis – 55% to be sold with margin of profit at 15% of cost of total project – Controversy as to which category the petitioners belong. Held that both side agree that this be resolved by Director Town Plainning. If they fall in 1st or 2nd category, possession to be granted on completion of formalities. Other suitable directions issued. (Paras 7, 8)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. We thought that with the two orders passed by this Court one dated 7.4.1997 and the other 30.3.1998 there would be no more controversy between the prospective allottees (who are the petitioners in all these interlocutory applications) and the Land Developer (who is also styled as “coloniser” or “owner” etc.). When the prospective allottees were on the threshold of realising their dream of getting possession of the plots applied for by them, they are confronted with a new situation as they got a letter addressed by the Land Development dated 15.4.1998 requiring each of them to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,550/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase I) or Rs. 2,390/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase II). The said letter directed them to pay the amount after crediting the amount already remitted. On the receipt of the said letter the petitioners have approached this Court once again with the grievance that the said demand is in violation of the orders passed by this court dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98.
2. It is true that this court has resolved the controversy between the parties relating the “the cost of land” by order dated 7.4.97. It is also true that this court resolved the dispute between the parties regarding the External Development charges and/or the Internal Development charges as for the plots in Phase I and Phase II (vide order dated 30.3.98).
3. The contention advanced by Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel on behalf of Land Developer is the following :
4. By order dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98 this Court has only resolved the (issued ?) which then existed. The Court proceeded on the assumption that there would be no controversy regarding the other items payable by the petitioners. For other details of the above submission, learned counsel referred us to the scheme under ? Which the land Developer could allot different plots to “would be allottees” As the scheme 20% according to the petitioners the said percentage is of the entire land covered by the scheme and according to the Land Developer the said percentage is of the entire plots) must be earmarked for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the people. For easy reference the aforesaid 20% can be referred to hereinafter as the First Category. Out of the remaining, 25% shall be earmarked for allotment on “No profit no loss basis” (for convenience that can be referred to as Second Category). The balance 55% is permitted to be sold in open market for which the Land Developer is permitted to secure a profit not exceeding 15% of the total project cost (such can be referred to as the Third Category).
5. It is commonly argued by both sides that if the prospective allottees (who are petitioner) fall within the Second Category the Land Developer is not entitled to demand any more amount than what was fixed by this Court as per the orders dated 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. It is also conceded that If the petitioners fall in the Third Category the Land Developers is not obliged to confine to the amount specified in those two orders as he can demand additional amounts which are permitted according to the scheme. Shri Thakur and Shri Dholakia learned Senior counsel and other learned counsel appearing for different petitioners contended that all the petitioners would fall within Second Category and are, therefore, entitled to limit the amount strictly within the orders passed by this Court on 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. Shri Thakur further contended that some of the petitioners would even fall within the purview of the First Category in which case also they would be entitled to the same benefit as could be claimed by the allottees under the Second Category.
6. But Shri P.P. Rao advanced the contention that none of the petitioners would fall within either the First or Second Category as all of them fall only within the purview of the Third Category.
7. The area of controversy has been very much narrowed down by the aforesaid stand adopted by the learned counsel. However, a detailed scrutiny of the materials is necessary to resolve the said dispute. We do not think it necessary now to go into such detailed scrutiny. Both sides agreed that respondent No. 4 (the Director of Town and Country Planning of the State of Haryana) can look into this dispute and come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners would fall within the Third Category or not. We, therefore, direct the said authority to determine the aforesaid controversy.
8. If the aforesaid Director decides that petitioners fall within the First Category or Second Category we make it clear that the Land Development will have no option but to put those petitioners in possession of the respective plots immediately on payment of the balance amount and also completion of other formalities as may be pointed out by the foresaid Director of Town Country Planning State of Haryana. On the other land if the aforesaid Director comes to the conclusion that the petitioners would fall within the Third Cetegory we further direct him to finalise the amount payable by each of them before claiming the right of being put in possession of the respective plot of land. In order to avoid further complications, we make it clear that on payment of the amounts so fixed by the Director within such time as the Director may specify and on completion of such formalities as he would specify the Land Developer shall put such person in possession of the plot concerned without any further delay.
9. As State of Haryana claims certain amounts due from the Land Developer we deem it necessary to make a further provision in that regard also. The aforesaid authority (Director of Town and Country Planning) will specify the amount payable by the Land Developer in respect of each plot to Haryana Government from out of the total amount payable by each of the petitioners. On such specification the petitioner concerned shall directly pay to the government the amount due to the Government of Haryana and the balance amount to the Land Developer.
10. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the Director of Town and Country Planning that the controversy will be determined within a period of four months and we direct him to do so.
11. IA No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 792 of 1996 the petitioner himself argued. His contention is that he has paid the entire amount due by him to the Land Developer. The Director of Town and Country Planning, State of Haryana will look into this matter also and pass appropriate orders (if he has paid the entire amount due) as to when he should be put in possession of the plot. If not, what is the balance amount payable by him would be specified in accordance with the direction given in respect of other petitioners.
12. Learned counsel for the Director of Town and Country Planning has intimated the Court that he is fixing the date 5th February, 1999 for a hearing in this matter at Faridabad (as he has already fixed the said date for the Land Developer to be heard regarding another allied matter). All petitioners have taken notice of the said date and they would be present before the said authority on the said date for the hearing.
13. All the Interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
1. We thought that with the two orders passed by this Court one dated 7.4.1997 and the other 30.3.1998 there would be no more controversy between the prospective allottees (who are the petitioners in all these interlocutory applications) and the Land Developer (who is also styled as “coloniser” or “owner” etc.). When the prospective allottees were on the threshold of realising their dream of getting possession of the plots applied for by them, they are confronted with a new situation as they got a letter addressed by the Land Development dated 15.4.1998 requiring each of them to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,550/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase I) or Rs. 2,390/- per square yard (for the plots included in phase II). The said letter directed them to pay the amount after crediting the amount already remitted. On the receipt of the said letter the petitioners have approached this Court once again with the grievance that the said demand is in violation of the orders passed by this court dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98.
2. It is true that this court has resolved the controversy between the parties relating the “the cost of land” by order dated 7.4.97. It is also true that this court resolved the dispute between the parties regarding the External Development charges and/or the Internal Development charges as for the plots in Phase I and Phase II (vide order dated 30.3.98).
3. The contention advanced by Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel on behalf of Land Developer is the following :
4. By order dated 7.4.97 and 30.3.98 this Court has only resolved the (issued ?) which then existed. The Court proceeded on the assumption that there would be no controversy regarding the other items payable by the petitioners. For other details of the above submission, learned counsel referred us to the scheme under ? Which the land Developer could allot different plots to “would be allottees” As the scheme 20% according to the petitioners the said percentage is of the entire land covered by the scheme and according to the Land Developer the said percentage is of the entire plots) must be earmarked for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the people. For easy reference the aforesaid 20% can be referred to hereinafter as the First Category. Out of the remaining, 25% shall be earmarked for allotment on “No profit no loss basis” (for convenience that can be referred to as Second Category). The balance 55% is permitted to be sold in open market for which the Land Developer is permitted to secure a profit not exceeding 15% of the total project cost (such can be referred to as the Third Category).
5. It is commonly argued by both sides that if the prospective allottees (who are petitioner) fall within the Second Category the Land Developer is not entitled to demand any more amount than what was fixed by this Court as per the orders dated 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. It is also conceded that If the petitioners fall in the Third Category the Land Developers is not obliged to confine to the amount specified in those two orders as he can demand additional amounts which are permitted according to the scheme. Shri Thakur and Shri Dholakia learned Senior counsel and other learned counsel appearing for different petitioners contended that all the petitioners would fall within Second Category and are, therefore, entitled to limit the amount strictly within the orders passed by this Court on 7.4.1997 and 30.3.1998. Shri Thakur further contended that some of the petitioners would even fall within the purview of the First Category in which case also they would be entitled to the same benefit as could be claimed by the allottees under the Second Category.
6. But Shri P.P. Rao advanced the contention that none of the petitioners would fall within either the First or Second Category as all of them fall only within the purview of the Third Category.
7. The area of controversy has been very much narrowed down by the aforesaid stand adopted by the learned counsel. However, a detailed scrutiny of the materials is necessary to resolve the said dispute. We do not think it necessary now to go into such detailed scrutiny. Both sides agreed that respondent No. 4 (the Director of Town and Country Planning of the State of Haryana) can look into this dispute and come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioners would fall within the Third Category or not. We, therefore, direct the said authority to determine the aforesaid controversy.
8. If the aforesaid Director decides that petitioners fall within the First Category or Second Category we make it clear that the Land Development will have no option but to put those petitioners in possession of the respective plots immediately on payment of the balance amount and also completion of other formalities as may be pointed out by the foresaid Director of Town Country Planning State of Haryana. On the other land if the aforesaid Director comes to the conclusion that the petitioners would fall within the Third Cetegory we further direct him to finalise the amount payable by each of them before claiming the right of being put in possession of the respective plot of land. In order to avoid further complications, we make it clear that on payment of the amounts so fixed by the Director within such time as the Director may specify and on completion of such formalities as he would specify the Land Developer shall put such person in possession of the plot concerned without any further delay.
9. As State of Haryana claims certain amounts due from the Land Developer we deem it necessary to make a further provision in that regard also. The aforesaid authority (Director of Town and Country Planning) will specify the amount payable by the Land Developer in respect of each plot to Haryana Government from out of the total amount payable by each of the petitioners. On such specification the petitioner concerned shall directly pay to the government the amount due to the Government of Haryana and the balance amount to the Land Developer.
10. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the Director of Town and Country Planning that the controversy will be determined within a period of four months and we direct him to do so.
11. IA No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 792 of 1996 the petitioner himself argued. His contention is that he has paid the entire amount due by him to the Land Developer. The Director of Town and Country Planning, State of Haryana will look into this matter also and pass appropriate orders (if he has paid the entire amount due) as to when he should be put in possession of the plot. If not, what is the balance amount payable by him would be specified in accordance with the direction given in respect of other petitioners.
12. Learned counsel for the Director of Town and Country Planning has intimated the Court that he is fixing the date 5th February, 1999 for a hearing in this matter at Faridabad (as he has already fixed the said date for the Land Developer to be heard regarding another allied matter). All petitioners have taken notice of the said date and they would be present before the said authority on the said date for the hearing.
13. All the Interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly.
