Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & ... on 19 April, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Civil Writ Petition No. 13221 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13221 of 2011
Date of decision:- 19.04.2012
Satpal ...Petitioner
Vs.
Haryana Urban Development Authority & another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate,
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 19.01.2011 (Annexure P-8), whereby the respondents have claimed double of extension fee amounting to Rs.3,25,394/-.
The petitioner purchased a commercial site at Guhla in an open auction in the year 1980. He failed to raise construction, which led to issuance of a notice dated 10.03.2003. The petitioner challenged the said notice in CWP No.13231 of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case HUDA Vs. Raj Singh Rana, AIR 2008 SC 3035, with direction to the respondents to issue a fresh notice demanding the entire arrears along with interest. In terms of the said order, a demand was initially raised on 28.10.2009. Another supplementary demand was raised on Civil Writ Petition No. 13221 of 2011 2 15.12.2009. The petitioner received another demand on 19.01.2011 after the said amounts were deposited, as the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.3,25,394/- i.e. double of the extension fee, as per the orders of the Chief Administrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that such order of the Chief Administrator was not supplied to him nor such order has been passed after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. But such order has been appended by the respondents along with written statement as Annexure R-1. In para No.7 of the written statement, it has been averred that the respondents decided to charge double of the extension fee for the period 31.12.2007 to 31.12.2011 while granting time to construct the building up to 31.12.2011 and it was also decided that no further extension shall be given after 31.12.2011.
The learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any policy contemplating charging of the double the extension fee. However, it is pointed out that as per the policy, the extension to raise construction was permissible only till 31.12.2007 on deposit of requisite fee. But to give effect to the orders passed by this Court, the double of the extension fee has been claimed from the petitioner for the period after 31.12.2007. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had not even completed construction up to 31.12.2011.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and found that the claim of double the amount of extension fee is not sustainable. This Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 17.02.2009 (CWP No.13231 of 2007). It was not pointed out to this Civil Writ Petition No. 13221 of 2011 3 Court that there is no provision for extension of time for raising construction after 31.12.2007. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court before 31.12.2007, therefore, the rights of the petitioner has to be examined as it existed on the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, the claim of extension fee at twice the rates without any term in the policy, is unjustified. In fact, such claim has been raised without giving any opportunity of hearing as well. Consequently, we do not find any justification of the claim of such extension fee and demand raised vide Annexure P-8 is quashed.
However, we leave the question open, as to what action can be taken in the event of non-construction of the building on or before 31.12.2011. It shall be open to the respondents to pass any appropriate order in accordance with law.
Disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(A.N. JINDAL)
April 19, 2012 JUDGE
ajp/vimal