State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pawan Kumar Singal vs Principal Secretary Govt Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/105/2025
WITH
SC/4/IA/343/2025 (STAY)
PAWAN KUMAR SINGAL
PRESENT ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Complainant(s)
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT OF PUNJAB
BUSINESS ADDRESS - CHANDIGARHCHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Opposite Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
PAWAN KUMAR SINGAL
DATED: 11/03/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Complaint case No. : 105 of 2025 Date of Institution : 04.11.2025 Date of Decision : 11.03.2026 Sh. Pawan Kumar Singal s/o Sh. Kulwant Rai, r/o H.No. 1428, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh-160047 and also residing at House No. 108, Good Earth Colony, Patiala ......Complainant Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Govt. Of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing-1 Branch), Chandigarh.
2. Chief Administrator PUDA (Punjab Urban Development Authority), PUDA Bhawan, Mohali.
3. Chief Town Planner Punjab, Sector 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh,
4. Senior Town Planner, Patiala, District Administration Complex, Rajbaha Road, Patiala.
5. District Town Planner Patiala, District Administration Complex, Rajbaha Road, Patiala,
6. Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala, PUDA Bhawan, Urban Estate, Patiala.
7. Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Patiala, PUDA Bhawan, Urban Estate, Patiala.
8. Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala, PUDA Bhawan, Urban Estate, Patiala.
.....Opposite parties
BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present:-
Sh. Munish Kapila, Advocate for the Complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte vide order dated 11.11.2025
Sh. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the opposite parties no.2, 6, 7 and 8.
Ms.Ramandeep Kaur, A.T.P./Representative of parties no.3, 4 & 5 (on VC). JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The complainant has approached this Commission alleging illegal and arbitrary actions of the opposite parties which wrongly held him liable to pay Rs.58,48,216/- without any lawful basis. Accordingly, to the complainant it amounts to deficiency in service, restrictive and unfair trade practices. Brief facts of the case:-
2. Admittedly, Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) Patiala, has chalked out a development scheme under the name and style O.U.V.G.L., 15.90 acre site (Devigarh Division) for the purpose of commercial plots, MS flats etc. The layout plan Annexure R-3/1 was duly approved by Chief Town Planner, Chandigarh on 23.07.2010/21.08.2010 providing 77 Shop cum Offices (SCO) of each area measuring 16'.6" x 66'-0" and total constructed area of four storeys. Zoning Plan of SCOs No.1 to 77 of Commercial sites was duly sanctioned on 21.06.2010 which is Annexure R-3/2 approved by the Chief Town Planner Punjab. In this document the total height of the SCO building is shown as 48'-6". However, inadvertently, number of storeys have been shown as (3) three Storeyed. Whereas, in the basic layout plan Annexure R-3/1 the total number of storey has been mentioned as 4 (Four) Storeyed. In pursuance of the Zoning Plan-Annexure R-3/2, applications for auction of commercial plot was issued vide publication 04.07.2014 (Annexure R-1) showing the total height of the SCO 48'-6" but number of storeys has been mentioned as (3) three Storeyed.
3. Undisputedly, initially SCO (Shop Cum Office) No. 04 measuring 101.21 square meters in Devigarh Division, Patiala was allotted to Smt. Renu Singla and Smt. Rekha Mittal on 19.09.2014 vide allotment letter Exhibit R-2. Subsequently, the said allottees sought transfer of the unit in favour of the present complainant, which request was accepted by the authority and the same was reallotted in favour of the complainant on 29.06.2017 vide letter, Exhibit R-6 after depositing the entire demanded amount. No Due Certificate dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure C-4) was issued and the conveyance deed (Annexure C-5) was executed on 13.11.2017 transferring the property in question, legally in the name of the complainant.
4. It has been specifically pleaded in the complaint that the said property was purchased by the complainant from the original allottees for his personal use and for earning livelihood for himself and his family, particularly for his son.
5. The complainant thereafter raised construction strictly in accordance with the permissible FAR and applicable building bye-laws and after depositing Rs.6,31,190/- including compounding fees, the competent authority issued an Occupation Certificate dated 16.03.2018 certifying compliance. However, to his shock, he received a notice dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure C-6) under Section 45(2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 raising an arbitrary demand of Rs.58,48,216/-.
Upon visiting the office of the Estate Officer, PUDA, Patiala, he came to know of an earlier alleged demand notice dated 24.12.2018 for Rs.28,67,733/-, but the same was not served upon him, and the demand had subsequently escalated to Rs.58,48,216/- by adding interest and penalty interest. On advice of the PUDA officials, the complainant applied for relief under the Amnesty Policy dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure C-7) through an application dated 01.04.2025 (Annexure C-8) and later issued a reminder dated 27.06.2025 (Annexure C-9), but instead of granting relief, the authorities issued an order dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure C-10) demanding Rs.28,66,773/- along with interest totaling Rs.56,53,433/-.
6. Under protest and to avoid cancellation or demolition of the building, the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.56,53,433/- on 23.09.2025 and subsequently also paid Rs.46,500/- as sanctioning map fees for the fourth storey on 01.10.2025 and Rs.1,30,000/- on 21.10.2025 as demanded by the building branch, vide Annexures C-11 colly.
7. It is the case of the complainant that the impugned demand is illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice because similarly situated SCOs in the same area are permitted construction of basement plus four floors/storey and as per the drawing approved by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab vide letter dated 11.06.2013, the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) for all 77 SCOs in Devigarh Division is the same, yet the department has arbitrarily applied different standards. The complainant had also served a legal notice demanding refund of Rs.56,53,433/- with interest but no relief was granted and instead PUDA replied on 28.10.2025 stating that the complainant's application under Category-B of the Amnesty Policy was still under consideration
8. Hence the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant seeking following reliefs:-
(i.) Set aside demand notice dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure C-6).
(ii.) Refund of Rs.56,53,433/-+ Rs.46,500/- + Rs.1,30,000 =58,29,933/-
(iii.) Pay interest at the rate of 18% pa from the date of deposit.
(iv.) Compensation for mental agony and harassment Rs. 1,00,000/-
(v.) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation.
(vi.) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit.
9. None put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.11.2025.
Reply filed by opposite parties no.2, 6, 7 and 8:-
10. Opposite parties no.2,6,7 and 8 in their joint written reply stated that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant does not fall within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, being an auction purchaser who stepped into the shoes of the original allottees, Smt. Renu Singla and Rekha Mittal, to whom SCO No. 04 in Devigarh Division, Patiala was allotted as the highest bidders in the auction held on 04.07.2014. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UT Chandigarh vs. Amarjeet Singh and by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Urban Improvement Trust vs. Magha Ram (RP No. 3053 of 2018 decided on 03.08.2023) and Shalini Tripathi vs. U.P. Avas Evam (RP No. 868 decided on 01.11.2019) that an auction purchaser is not covered under the definition of consumer. The complainant has also purchased the said SCO for commercial gain and not for earning livelihood, as he has shifted to Chandigarh as reflected from the rent agreement annexed with the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite parties, as the demand raised is towards payment of an additional 25% of the auction price for construction of the fourth storey, which represents the proportionate cost of the said additional floor and was duly communicated to the original allottee vide letter dated 27.06.2017 in response to her request dated 06.06.2017. The allotment letter dated 19.09.2014, which was subsequently transferred in the name of the complainant, also contains an arbitration clause providing that any dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of allotment shall be referred to the Chief Administrator of the Authority and, therefore, in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the matter deserves to be referred to arbitration. The complaint is also barred by limitation as the complainant has challenged the terms of an auction conducted in 2014 after more than eleven years and after about eight years from the transfer of the SCO in his name, whereas the demand for additional 25% price was first raised vide letter dated 24.12.2018. The complainant had also filed an affidavit dated 22.06.2017 agreeing to abide by all the terms and conditions of the allotment and while granting permission for transfer vide letter dated 28.06.2017 it was specifically mentioned that if the purchaser constructs the fourth storey he would be liable to pay the additional 25% of the auction price. The complainant thereafter raised construction of the fourth storey and is therefore liable to pay the additional amount as per the applicable terms. An advertisement issued for the auction dated 04.07.2014 clearly mentioned the category of construction as Basement + Ground Floor + First Floor + Second Floor, whereas the complainant has relied upon auction notices dated 15.10.2015 and 25.02.2016 which relate to different SCOs and different auction conditions. Since the complainant failed to deposit the additional amount despite demand made vide letter dated 24.12.2018, a notice dated 28.08.2024 under Section 45(1) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 was issued demanding Rs.58,48,216/- including Rs.29,24,108/- as penal interest, followed by notice dated 18.11.2024 under Section 45(2). The letter dated 24.12.2018 was duly delivered and not returned undelivered, and the subsequent communication dated 26.06.2025 under the Amnesty Policy dated 20.02.2025 informed the complainant that after waiver of part of the penal interest, the amount payable stood at Rs.56,53,433/- towards the cost of the fourth storey, cancer cess and scheme interest; however, the said communication was returned with the remark "door locked" and was later sent through WhatsApp. The complainant has also paid Rs.1,30,000/- as compounding fee for raising construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. The demand raised is therefore legal and justified and cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory, particularly when the terms and conditions of the auction held on 04.07.2014 are different from those of the auctions conducted on 15.10.2015 and 25.02.2016 and the reserve price was also different. The complainant has also applied under Form-B of Amnesty Policy-
2025 for redetermination of the amount and the same is presently under consideration, with the policy providing a period of one year for decision and further stipulating that any excess amount, if found payable, shall be refunded without interest within six months of such decision. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Reply filed by opposite parties no.3 to 5:-
11. Opposite parties no.3 to 5 stated that the present complaint relates to construction on an allotted SCO site in Devigarh Division, Patiala and the demand raised for construction of an additional floor under the Amnesty Policy by the Patiala Development Authority (PDA). The demand for payment for the additional floor was raised and collected by PDA, and therefore Opposite Parties No. 3, 4 and 5 have no role in the said demand or its recovery. The Department of Town and Country Planning functions only as a planning agency responsible for preparing layout and zoning plans of OUVGL sites and Urban Estates in accordance with applicable building rules and policies, whereas the implementation of such plans is carried out by the concerned development authority, which in the present case is PDA. The SCO in question forms part of the commercial site of Devigarh Division, Patiala, the layout plan of which (Drawing No. DTP(P) 3521/10 dated 23.07.2010/21.08.2010) was approved by the Layout Approval Committee under the chairmanship of CA, PUDA, wherein four-storey SCOs were proposed. However, the initial zoning plan prepared vide Drawing No. 3528/10 dated 21.08.2010 inadvertently permitted construction only up to three storeys. Subsequently, the Chief Town Planner issued Letter No. 176 dated 15.01.2015 directing preparation of a revised zoning plan in accordance with the approved layout, pursuant to which the zoning was revised vide Drawing No. 3620/15 dated 22.01.2015 and approved by the Chief Town Planner vide Letter No. 828 dated 05.03.2015, permitting construction up to four storeys (Ground + 3). The said revised drawing was communicated to PDA, Patiala by the District Town Planner vide Letter No. 562 dated 01.04.2015, much prior to the demand notice dated 24.12.2018. Therefore, it is admitted that construction upto four storeys is permissible for all SCOs in the said site including that of the complainant; however, as the allotment letter was issued by PDA and the demand for additional cost for the fourth floor was also raised by PDA, Opposite Parties No. 3, 4 and 5 have no role in penalizing the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant has wrongly relied upon Drawing No. DTP(P) 3587/13 dated 06.06.2013 approved vide Letter No. 3142 C.T.P. (PB) SR/53 dated 11.06.2013, which pertains to zoning for MS Flats and not to the SCOs in question. Opposite party No. 4 received the legal notice and replied to the same vide Letter No. 1805 dated 10.11.2025, whereas Opposite parties No. 3 and 5 did not receive any such notice. Remaining averments have been denied being wrong and prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint.
Rejoinder:-
12. In the rejoinder filed the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in his complaint and controverted those of the written reply of the opposite parties.
Evidence:-
13. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
14. We have heard the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, including the written arguments filed by the parties concerned, very carefully.
Findings/observations of this Commission:-
15. In this case, following questions fell for determination before this Commission:-
(i). Whether the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer or not?
(ii). Whether in the face of arbitration clause contained in the allotment letter, this consumer complaint is maintainable before this Commission or not?
(iii). As to how many Storeys under the scheme in question was approved by the competent authorities and for what height?
(iv). Whether, advertisements dated 2014 (Annexure R-1 and C-2) allowing only 3 Storeyed is contrary to the final zoning/layout plan are interse defective?.
(v). Whether demand raised by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.58,48,216/- is arbitrary and illegal and if yes, its effect and what relief can be given to the complainant?
Question No.(i):-
16. First, we will address the objection raised by the contesting opposite parties that the complainant do not fall within the definition of 'consumer'. It may be stated that this objection is not supported by any documentary evidence; therefore, the onus shifts to opposite parties to establish that the complainant purchased the unit in question for the purpose of 'purchase and sale of plots', as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in Kavit Ahuja vs. Shipra Estates I (2016) CPJ 31. Since they have failed to discharge this onus, we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act. In view of this, the objection raised in this regard stands rejected. Reliance placed by the opposite parties on Urban Improvement Trust and another Versus Magha Ram, RP No.3053 of 2018 decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 03.08.2023 and also RP No.868 of 2017 titled as Shalini Tripathi Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and other decided on 01.11.2019 are distinguishable on facts. In the case in hand, the complainant is neither challenging the auction process nor challenging the amenities to be provided at the project site but he wants to take benefit of original document by layout/zoning plans, referred to above.
Question No.(ii):-
17. Now coming to the objection taken with regard to Arbitration, it may be stated here that this issue has already been addressed by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Aftab Singh Vs. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr. (Consumer Case No. 701 of 2015), decided on 13.07.2017. In its order dated 13.07.2017, the Hon'ble National Commission held that an arbitration clause in agreements/contracts between a buyer and a builder cannot override the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions, despite the amendments to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Furthermore, the Civil Appeals (Nos. 23512-23513 of 2017) and the Review Petitions (C) Nos. 2629-2630 of 2018 filed by the builder before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India against the order dated 13.07.2017 were dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its orders dated 13.02.2018 and 10.12.2018, respectively. Accordingly, objection raised in this regard is hereby rejected.
Question No.(iii):-
18. The main controversy in this case is with regard to the construction of total number of storeys.
According to the complainant, the height of the building is the basic criteria which was never alerted and it remained throughout 48'-6". According to him, the defective advertisement, Annexure R-1 was issued on the basis of zoning plan-Annexure R-3/2 showing three storeys, which plan was later on revised and modified wherein, storeys were mentioned as 4 (four) with same height 48'.6''. According to opposite parties the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of advertisement Annexure R-1 and letters issued to original allottees Annexure R-5, R-7 and also R-8. By rebutting this, counsel for the complainant argued that none of the letters were ever issued either to the earlier allottees or the complainant and those have been fabricated later on.
19. We have considered these contentions and more carefully scanned the evidence and other material on the record.
Admittedly, layout plan of SCOs No.1 to 77 of commercial sites of the area known as "Devigarh Division Patiala" was approved vide site drawing no.DTP (P)/3521/10 dated 23.07.2010/21/8/2010 (Annexure R-3/1), wherein four-storey SCOs were proposed. In this plan SCO No.1 to 58 were in the same line whereas SCO No.59 to 77 on the vertical side. Relevant portion of R-3/1 is reproduced hereunder:-
However, the initial zoning plan prepared vide Drawing No. 3528/10 dated 21.08.2010 (Annexure R-3/2) inadvertently permitted construction only up to three storeys but height was kept as same i.e. 48'-6". Subsequently, the Chief Town Planner issued Letter No. 176 dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure R-3/3) directing preparation of a revised zoning plan in accordance with the approved layout, pursuant to which the zoning was revised vide Drawing No. 3620/15 dated 22.01.2015 (Annexure R-3/5) and approved by the Chief Town Planner vide Letter No. 828 dated 05.03.2015, permitting construction of all the 77 SCOs up to four storeys (Ground + 3) as under:-
20. A bare perusal of layout plan, Annexure R-3/1 and revised Drawing (Annexure R-3/5), transpires that the permissible site coverage is 75% on each floor, including the Ground Floor (G.F.), First Floor (F.F.), Second Floor (S.F.), and Third Floor (T.F.). The building is permitted to have a basement with four storeys above it (Basement + Four Storey allowed) with a maximum building height of 48′-6″.
21. Thus, it is very much clear from Annexures R-3/1 and R-3/2 that the scheme for commercial area was planned with four storeys above it (Basement + Four Storey allowed) with a maximum building height of 48′-6″ but inadvertently, in Annexure R-3/2 although the height of each SCO was kept same i.e. 48'-6" yet inadvertently number of storeys was mentioned as 3 (three). On the basis of this, zoning plan R-3/2 advertisements Exh. R-1 was issued giving same height of the SCO as 48'-6" and number of storeys as 3 but later on this mistake came to the notice of the Chief Town Planner who vide his letter Annexure R-3/3 corrected the same and revised zoning plan Annexures R-3/4 was issued showing the height of the building as 48'-6" and number of storeys as 4 (Four). This fact has been duly admitted by opposite parties no.3 to 5 and they categorically admitted in the reply as well as in the affidavit as shown hereunder in italic font:-
"....That the complainant is refering the Drawing no DTP (P) 3587/13 dated 06.06.2013 (Annexure R-3/7) approved by the Chief Town Planner, (Punjab), Chandigarh vide letter no. 3142 C.T.P. (PB) SR/53 dated 11.06.2013 but this drawing is zoning for MS Flats only and not for the SCOs complainant is quoting. However, it is true that the zoning plan of the commercial site of Devigarh Division, Patiala including the SCO of complainant was prepared vide drawing no 3528/10 dated 21-08-2010 (Annexure R-3/2) in which height was allowed upto 3 storeys inadvertently. The Chief Town planner, opposite party no 3 issued letter no. 176 dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure R-3/3), to prepare revised zoning of the site as per the approved layout plan. This zoning was revised vide drawing no 3620/15 dated 22- 01-2015 (Annexure R-3/4), which was approved by Chief Town planner vide their letter no 828 dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure R-3/5), in which construction of SCO was allowed upto 4 storeys. This drawing was issued to the PDA Patiala by District Town Planner vide their letter no 562 dated 1-04-2015 (Annexure R-3/6) which is before the date 24.12.2018 So it is true that construction is permissible upto 4 Storeys (Ground+3) according to this zoning plan for all the SCOs in the site including the SCO of complainant. However, as the allotment letter is issued by the Patiala Development authority, and the additional cost for fourth floor is also demanded by Patiala Development Authority...."
22. Surprisingly, after making the modification and issuing revised plan Annexure R-3/5, no notice was issued to the original allottees of SCO No.4 i.e. Smt. Renu Singla and Smt. Rekha Mittal. Merely, that a mistake has occurred on the part of the opposite parties while issuing zoning plan R-3/2 but even though, maintaining the same height 48'-6" ipso facts does not establish that the scheme was only for three storeys. It is nobody's case that complainant has enhanced the height more than 48'-6". Surprisingly, in the subsequent advertisement, Annexure C-1 the number of storeys is mentioned as 4 of adjoining SCOs in the same sequence and series. In these circumstances the opposite parties cannot take benefit of their own wrong. The basic document Annexure R-3/1 is the layout plan permitting four storeys and the mistake has been corrected by issuing revised plan Annexure R-3/5. Besides this, it shall be discriminatory to permit three storeys to certain SCOs whereas permitting four storeys to others in the same line. Under these circumstances, the answer to the question posed at Sr.No.(iii) is answered that the building is permitted to have a basement with four storeys above it (Basement + Four Storey allowed) with a maximum building height of 48′-6″.
Question No.(iv):-
23. Now coming to the question as to whether the advertisements floated on 04.07.2014 (Annexure R-1 and C-2) are wrong, discriminatory and defective?. As stated above, the competent authority itself has candidly admitted that the initial zoning plan prepared vide Drawing No. 3528/10 dated 21.08.2010 (Annexure R-3/2) inadvertently permitted construction only upto three storeys, whereas the approved layout plan Annexure R-3/1 of the scheme had clearly proposed four-storey SCOs but even in Annexure R- 3/2 the height is mentioned as 48′-6″. The said inadvertent mistake was subsequently acknowledged by the authorities themselves, whereupon the Chief Town Planner directed the preparation of a revised zoning plan in conformity with the approved layout. Even this fact is admitted in the reply (ibid). Consequently, the zoning plan was revised vide Drawing No. 3620/15 dated 22.01.2015 and was thereafter duly approved by the Chief Town Planner vide Letter No. 828 dated 05.03.2015, whereby construction of basement with four storeys above it was expressly permitted. Thus, the advertisement in question was issued on the basis of an erroneous zoning plan which did not truly reflect the scheme as originally approved. Surprisingly, no fresh notice was served upon the allottees to this effect.
In view of the aforesaid factual position and the clear admission of error on the part of the authorities, it stands established that the advertisements issued on 04.07.2014 (Exh.R-1) were based on an incorrect and incomplete zoning position, thereby misleading prospective applicants regarding the permissible construction. Such an advertisement, founded upon an admitted mistake in the zoning plan, cannot be said to be fair or legally sustainable and inevitably renders the process arbitrary in nature. The opposite parties developed the commercial sites for the welfare of the public at large. PUDA is not a profit making or private sector company, therefore, it can't go against the interests of the public and cannot enrich itself by applying chicanery methodology. However, one fact remains constant i.e. height upto 48'-6" since the very inception as shown in Annexure R-3/1 and subsequent layout/zoning plans. If the original allottees or complainant raised the height upto 48'-6" they have committed no violation of the rules and they cannot be penalized for this purpose. Consequently, the said advertisements stand vitiated and are liable to be treated as based on wrong zoning plans (which was subsequently corrected), discriminatory, defective and notwithstanding the same complainant is not estopped to construct four storeys upto the permissible height of 48'-6". As such, the question posed at Sr. No.(iv) is answered in the affirmative, holding that the advertisements dated 04.07.2014 suffer from the aforesaid legal infirmities.
Question No.(v):-
24. Now the final question that falls for consideration is as to whether the demand raised by the opposite parties (PUDA) vide notice dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure C-6) to the tune of Rs.58,48,216/- is arbitrary and illegal and, if so, what would be its effect and the relief to which the complainant is entitled?
From the material placed on record, it stands established that PUDA allotted SCO No. 04 measuring 101.21 square meters, upto the height of 48'-6", in Devigarh Division, Patiala to Smt. Renu Singla and Smt. Rekha Mittal, which stood later on transferred in the name of the present complainant. It is undisputed fact that the complainant raised four storeys but maintained the height thereof upto 48'-6". As found by this Commission, the opposite parties failed to establish that letters Annexure R-3, R-5, R-7 and R-8 have ever been served upon the original allottees or to the complainant. Surprisingly, at the time of accepting transfer vide Annexure R-6 no such condition or demand was raised to the complainant. The cause of action accrued on receipt of letter dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure C-6) vide which complainant was cautioned to deposit Rs.58,48,216/- to avoid rigorous/penal consequences of Section 45(2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. Faced with the imminent threat of cancellation of the property and coercive action by the authority, the complainant was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.56,53,433/- on 23.09.2025 with PUDA Patiala, under protest, which is duly reflected in letter dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure C-11), wherein the complainant clearly recorded that the payment was being made under protest and without prejudice to his legal rights. It is also not disputed that prior to this, the complainant had already deposited Rs.6,31,190/- as compounding charges on 15.03.2018 while seeking regularization of the construction.
25. Furthermore, the conduct of the opposite parties in issuing a No Due Certificate, executing the conveyance deed, permitting construction and thereafter issuing the Occupation Certificate clearly indicates that the complainant had complied with all the requirements under the applicable rules and policies. Once the authority had accepted the entire consideration, issued the No Due Certificate and allowed occupation of the building, it could not subsequently raise a fresh demand after several years on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the zoning provisions. Such action on the part of the authority is not only arbitrary but also violative of the principles of fairness and legitimate expectation, as the complainant had acted on the basis of approvals granted by the very same authority.
26. In these circumstances, the demand raised vide notice dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure C-6) for payment of Rs.58,48,216/- towards alleged price of the fourth floor cannot sustain in law. The said demand is clearly arbitrary, illegal and unjustified, particularly when the fourth storey upto height of 48'-6" was already permissible under the original layout plan Annexure R-3/1 and revised zoning plan applicable to the site. The amount recovered from the complainant pursuant to such demand was therefore obtained under coercive circumstances and without any lawful authority, which amounts to restrictive and unfair trade practice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
27. In view of the circumstances, evidence and discussions enumerated above, the complainant is held entitled to refund of the aforesaid amount along with appropriate interest, besides compensation and litigation costs. Consequently, the complainant is held entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.56,53,433/- deposited under protest, along with the additional amounts of Rs.46,500/- deposited as sanctioning map fees for the fourth storey and Rs.1,30,000/- deposited as compounding charges, totaling Rs.58,29,933/-.
28. As far as objection regarding limitation is concerned, it may be stated here that cause of action first time accrued on receipt of letter Annexure R-6 dated 18.11.2024 and then on 23.09.2025 i.e. when the amount of Rs.56,53,433/- alongwith other charges was deposited under protest by the complainant, as such, this complaint having been filed on 04.11.2025 is well within the period of limitation as provided under Section 69 (1) of the CPA 2019.
29. It has also been argued by the counsel for Opposite Parties No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 that since the complainant himself applied for relief under the Amnesty Policy, he is estopped from challenging the demand raised by the authorities. We have carefully considered the said contention but find no merit in the same. It is evident from the record that a notice, Annexure C-6, under Section 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 was issued to the complainant on 18.11.2024 whereby a disputed amount of Rs.58,48,216/- was demanded and he was directed to deposit the same, failing which coercive action including cancellation of the allotment of SCO No.04 and other penal consequences were to follow. Faced with such imminent threat, the complainant was constrained to deposit an amount of Rs.56,53,433/- on 23.09.2025 under protest, besides further amounts of Rs.46,500/- towards sanctioning map fees and Rs.1,30,000/- towards compounding charges. In these circumstances, the deposit of the aforesaid amounts cannot be said to be voluntary or amount to acceptance of liability. Rather, the payment was made under compulsion to avoid cancellation of the property and other adverse consequences. Similarly, the application submitted under the Amnesty Policy cannot operate as estoppel against the complainant from challenging the legality of the demand raised by the opposite parties. It is a settled principle of law that when payment is made under protest or under coercive circumstances, the doctrine of estoppel does not apply. Therefore, merely because the complainant deposited the amount or sought consideration of his case under the Amnesty Policy, it cannot deprive him of his right to question the legality and validity of the impugned demand. The plea raised by the opposite parties in this regard is therefore rejected.
30. For the reasons recorded above, this compliant is partly accepted with costs. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i). to refund the entire amount of Rs.58,29,933/- received from the complainant, alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of respective receipts onwards within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
(ii). to pay Rs.35,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of litigation cost shall carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
31. Pending applications(s), if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
32. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
33. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
11.03.2026 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PREETINDER SINGH) MEMBER Rg.
..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER