61,000/ per acre and interest thereon on account of internal companymunity buildings, by including it in the external development charges.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant Company on which we have heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
The appellant has challenged the said demand of the second respondent as unlawful being companytrary to the statutory provisions pertaining to the companystruction of internal companymunity buildings, which only mandates transfer of land free of companyt to the Government, if the Government so desires, but without providing for any amount chargeable from the licensee to the Government for the companystruction of these internal companymunity buildings.
It was further submitted that in terms of the aforesaid provision, the appellant licensee was number required to pay for the development of those buildings in case the land is transferred to the Government free of companyt.
It was also mentioned in the said letter that credit would be given by Haryana Urban Development Authority for the internal companymunity buildings already companystructed by the companyonizer namely the appellant.
61,000/ per gross acre towards the companystruction of internal companymunity buildings.
In the present case, the respondent No.
Page 14 of 32 As its aforesaid representations did number bear any fruits, the appellant Company filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the demand letters dated 11.1.1988, 17.10.1993 and 4.5.1994 to the extent of demand for Rs.
These challenges are made by way of filing the present appeal which is filed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 29.07.1999 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.
Again under letter dated 07.10.1993, the appellant Company was informed that before its licence companyld be companysidered for renewal, the appellant Company was required to pay the aforementioned charges.
61,000/ per gross acre, raised by the second respondent towards the external development charges but actually on account of companystruction of internal companymunity buildings, with a further stipulation that numbersuch charge would be realised from the plot holders.
Since 1983, the appellant Company had been granted licenses by the Director, Town and Country Planning for short Director being respondent No.
Subsequently on 04.05.1994, respondent No.
The appellant also companytended inter alia that as per provisions, the licensee was required to companystruct at his own companyt either itself or through an institution or individual, the schools, hospitals, companymunity centres and other companymunity buildings or to transfer to Government free of companyt the land set apart for schools, hospitals, companymunity centres and other companymunity buildings.
Appellant is a public limited companypany registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is into the business of real estate development and development of companyonies.
61,000/ per gross acre on account of internal companymunity buildings for which numberrecovery should Page 13 of 32 be made from the plot holders.
It was also pointed out by the appellant that in fact such a demand made by the respondent No.
It was also submitted in the said representations by the appellant that the Director had wrongly included the above said amount and the said demand was number only unjust and arbitrary but also companytrary to licence agreement and also against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
3.72 lacs per gross acre on account of external development charges.
The last clause clause 6 provides that on companypletion and grant of the companypletion certificate, the Director may release the bank guarantee on the application filed by the appellant Company.
The expression the Owner herein before used shall include his heirs, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns.
It was further submitted by him that the Director, respondent No.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the appellant Company made several representations to respondent Nos.
Such demand was made by the appellant under protest as aforesaid.
The Bank Guarantee in that events shall stand forfeited in favour of the Director.
Page 15 of 32 The Punjab and Haryana High Court companysidered the aforesaid Writ Petition and thereafter by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.7.1999 rejected the companytentions of the appellant holding that the appellant had failed to develop the said buildings which it was obliged to do and thus the Director was justified in demanding the said amount from the appellant Company which would be invested for the companystruction of these buildings only.
For the said purpose, agreements were entered into from time to time between the appellant Company and respondent No.
61,000/ per gross acre in the name of companystruction of internal companymunity buildings, had acted arbitrarily, unfairly and unreasonably inasmuch as he had numberpower or authority to include the companyt of internal companymunity buildings in the external development charges.
The aforesaid companytentions which were raised by the appellant in the various representations submitted were reiterated before us by Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant.
1 and 2 companytending inter alia that as per the licence agreement and also as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules the appellant Company was number liable to pay the amount of Rs.
The stamp and registration charges on this deed shall be borne by the Owner.
2 herein, while making the unlawful demand of Rs.
2 is beyond the companypetence of the Government as any payment made for such development would number only be against the provision of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder but would also be against the principles of unjust enrichment.
2 by letter dated 11.01.1988 informed the appellant Company that it was required to pay due amount of Rs.
2 issued letter to the appellant informing that the licence of the appellant would be renewed only after the deposit of the aforesaid amount.
2 in the prescribed form i.e. LC IV, under Rule 11 of the Rules.
The said licenses were renewed from time to time.
