Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Learned counsel for the respondents have jointly argued that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without first exhausting the departmental remedy as per clause 18 of the allotment letter. According to the leaned counsel the petitioner must approach the Chief Administrator, PUDA. They have further argued that according to Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules the maximum period of extension has already expired and the petitioner cannot claim the same as a matter of right.

12. The State of Punjab enacted a comprehensive legislation in the year 1995 to regulate the regional and town planning and development of urban estates. The Division Bench judgment in Tehal Singh's case (supra) examined Section 2(zc), 43, 148, 180 and 183 of the 1995 Act and noticed that the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) was established by the State of Punjab by issuing notification dated 30.6.1995 by abolishing the Punjab Housing Development Board. The analysis made by the Division Bench of the aforementioned sections is evident from the following para:-
13."

14. The Division Bench accepted the argument similar to the one raised by the petitioner. The Division Bench held that the extension fee has to be charged in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules enacted by the State Government under Section 180(2)(i) of the 1995 Act and with the enactment of the 1995 Act and the 1995 Rules, the PUDA and its functionaries cannot demand enhanced extension fee from the petitioner. It went on to hold that the notices issued to the petitioners for payment of extension fee were ultra vires of the provisions of the 1995 Act and the 1995 Rules. It would be apposite to read Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules, which is as under:-