Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghu Nath Gupta And Others vs Punjab Urban Development & Planning ... on 5 November, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 6929 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: November 5, 2008
Raghu Nath Gupta and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Punjab Urban Development & Planning Authority, Mohali and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 31.1.2007, passed by the Chief Administrator, GMADA, in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 18753 of 2002, decided on 13.7.2006. In paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order, on the basis of the report of the Divisional Engineer (Civil-2), a finding has been recorded by the Chief Administrator that works on the site were completed on C.W.P. No. 6929 of 2007 2 20.12.2002. For the facility of reference, paras 7 and 8 are extracted as under:-
"7. On the adjourned date of hearing, a copy of the report dated 31.10.2006 filed by the Engineering Wing through the Superintending Engineer (Civil) PUDA, Mohali was provided to the representative of the allottee on 01.11.2006. As per the report, Divisional Engineer (Civil-2) had completed the work on 20.12.2002. Divisional Engineer (Public Health-2) had reported that so far as drinking water is concerned, a toilet was constructed in Bay Shop No. 18 with Water Closet, Urinal and drinking water, about 1000 feet away from Shop No. 134 in 1994-95 itself and handed over to the NAC SAS Nagar. Regarding sewerage/drainage, it was reported that a public toilet has been constructed in 3B2 before the allotment of shop No. 134. Road gullies had been constructed for storm water drainage in the parking area of shop No. 134.
8. However, vide his objections filed on 15.11.2006, the applicant disputed the facts stated in the report and alleged the report to be false, misconceived and contrary to the facts. He further asserted that vide Memo. No. PUDA:EO/2002/132, dated 09.01.2002, PUDA admitted that the basic amenities like parking, lights, roads, water and sewerage are not existing at site and that the toilet was shown near SCF No. 124-125. It has, however, been confirmed that the electrical works had been completed C.W.P. No. 6929 of 2007 3 by 24.12.2002, Public Health works had been completed by 22.11.2002 and the development of the commercial pocket had been completed by 20.12.2002."
A perusal of the aforementioned paras shows that electrical work had been completed by 24.12.2002, the public health work by 22.11.2002 and the development of commercial pocket could be completed by 20.12.2002. Despite recording the aforementioned finding, the Chief Administrator rejected the representation made by the petitioners for seeking ratable relief with regard to imposition of penalty, penal interest and interest.
The aforementioned facts are required to be examined in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh v. M/s Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 109. While interpreting various provisions of the rules known as 'Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973, their Lordships' of the Supreme Court has observed that if facilities like, kacha road, drainage, drinking water, sewerage, street lighting have not been provided then the allottees' were entitled to some proportionate relief in the matter of payment of penalty and interest for delay in payment of equated instalments or ground rent or part thereof only and in cases the aforementioned amenities have been provided then no relief could be given to them.
The impugned order itself shows that electrical facility, public health facilities and commercial pocket in the area in question could be developed only in November/December 2002. It is also undisputed that the possession of the plot in question was delivered to the petitioners on 25.5.2001. Therefore, the petitioners would be C.W.P. No. 6929 of 2007 4 entitled to the benefit for the period facilities were not provided to them.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to persuade us to take a view contrary to the one taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and accordingly relief is liable to be granted to the petitioners in the instant case. Therefore, we allow the writ petition to the limited extent that the petitioners shall be granted the relief in imposition of interest, penal interest and penalty for the period commencing from 1.6.2001 to 31.12.2002. They shall, however, be liable to pay interest, penal interest and penalty after 1.1.2003 on account of delayed payment of instalments. The respondents shall re-calculate the amount payable by the petitioners in the light of the aforementioned direction. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The remaining payment shall be made by the petitioners within one month thereafter.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
November 5, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor