| Headnote |
Urban Development:Haryana Development and Regulation ot Urban .Areas Act, 1975 - s. 3(3)(a)(iv) - Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 - rr.4, 5 and 11 - Demand on account of construction cost of Internal -. community buildings, when land transferred by colonizer to Government free of cost - Held: There is no requirement for the licensee to provide for or to make payment for the cost of construction of internal community buildings when the land is transferred to the Government free of cost either in the statute or in the licence agreement- Since the land was given free of cost, it was open to the Government to get the remaining community buildings constructed either by themselves or through any agency or institution or individual ,. i at its cost - Government cannot demand that the buildings on the said lands which were transferred to them free of cost should also be constructed by the colonizer/developer and then transfer the land to them along with the construction thereon and on failure to construct, to pay for the cost of construction - That would be illegal and unauthorised demand as it has no statutory mandate - Word used in s. 3(3)(a)(iv) is "land" - The Government's claim is therefore restricted to lands which the colonizer failed to develop as community centres - On facts, colonizer on receipt of the demand letter raised objection regarding the charge - Payment by colonizer was due to the threat of cancellation of its licence - Payment was thus made under protest - Therefore, principle of waiver and acquiescence would not be applicable - Waiver/acquiescence - Principle of.Interpretation of statutes: Reading a statute - Held: Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous - Language employed in a statute is determinative factor of legislative intent - When language of enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper for courts to add any words thereto and evolve some legislative intent, not found in the statute. Waiver and acquiescence - Principle of - Applicability - Held: In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a right - The essence of a waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there is no waiver- Estoppel and waiver are questions of conduct and must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case. The respondent No. 2, Director, Town and Country Planning by letter dated 11.01.1988 informed the appellant Company that it was required to pay due amount of Rs. 3.72 lacs per gross acre on account of external development charges. It was also mentioned in the said letter that an amount of Rs.3.72 lacs per gross acre, in fact included Rs. 61,000/- per gross acre on account of internal community buildings for which no recovery should be made from the plot holders. Under letter dated 7 .10.1993, the appellant- Company was informed that before its licence could be considered for renewal, the appellant Company was required to pay the charges. Subsequently on 4.05.1994, respondent No. 2 issued letter to the appellant informing that the licence of the appellant would be renewed only after the deposit of the ยท amount demanded. Aggrieved by these letters, the appellant Company made several representations to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contending that as per the licence agreement and also as per the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, the appellant Company was not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 61,000/- per gross acre towards the construction of internal community buildings; and that the demand was not only unjust and arbitrary but also contrary to licence agreement and also ..... _ .. against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. As these representations were not favourably considered, the appellant Company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the demand letters dated 11.1.1988, 17.10.1993 and 4.5.1994 to the extent of demand for Rs. 61,000/- per acre (and interest thereon) on account of internal community buildings, by including it in the external development charges.The High Court held that the appellant failed to develop the said buildings which it was obliged to do and thus the Director was justified in demanding the said amount. In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appellant that the Director, respondent No. 2, while making the unlawful demand of Rs. 61,000/- per gross acre in the name of construction of internal community buildings, acted arbitrarily, unfairly and unreasonably inasmuch as he had no power or authority to include the cost of internal community buildings in the external development charges. The respondent No. 2 contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the contention of the appellant was that the impugned demand made was outside the provisions of the Act and the Rules and therefore the actual remedy that was available to the appellant to challenge the said demand was by way of filing a civil suit; that the writ petition filed by the appellant was in the nature of claim for rendition of accounts for which the writ was not a proper remedy; that the demand "" .made was within the jurisdiction and parameters laid down in section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Act; and in the alternative it was contended that in that event, the entire amount for which demand was raised has since been paid by the appellant and therefore, the principle of waiver and acquiescence would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. |
