Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)
Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Neeraj Chugh on 16 September, 2013 cites

Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 July, 2011

10. In case we go through the allegations in the complaint, the Society has purchased 39 acres of land, which was acquired by OP No. 1 but lateron this land of the Society was exempted vide notification dated 9.2.1977 and OP No. 1 was to allot the plots but the same was not done but when CWP No. 2659 of 1981 was filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, OP No. 1 allotted 281 plots of various sizes with plot in dispute to the complainant after litigation in Courts or with Govt. of Punjab Departments was over then the plot was allotted on 9.5.1993. Ex. C-2 is the letter with regard to provisional allotment of the plots. Vide resolution No. 359 dated 17.11.1994 Ex. C-18, it was decided by the opposite party to charge NCF from the allottees, however, the Govt. of Punjab vide their letter dated 22.4.1999 Ex. C-20 directed all the Improvement Trusts including the appellant not to charge non-construction charges, interest and any other penal interest in respect of those plots which were remained under stay or subject matter under litigation either in the Courts or with the Punjab Govt.. After getting the site plan sanctioned on 16.6.1997, the complainant raised the construction but till the year 2001, there was no development in the area, therefore, the non-construction charges have been wrongly demanded and FIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2009 9 recovered from the complainant. In those circumstances, the NCF cannot be recovered. Moreover, the NCF cannot be recovered on the basis of Administrative Instructions as held in the judgment "Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab" CWP No. 13648 of 1998 decided on 4.5.1998 by DB of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, "Sant Kaur Pabbi Vs. State of Punjab", CWP No. 18986 of 2001 decided on 31.10.2002 and again in the judgment "Harpreet Singh VS. State of Punjab", 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 771 it was again reiterated after relying upon the judgment of "Tehal Singh and others' (supra), the charging of NCF on the basis of administrative instructions have been set- aside in the judgment "Improvement Trust, Barnala Vs. Mrs. Shashi Kansal" 1999(2) CLT 651(Pb.), "Nazar Ram Bali Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust", 2006(2) CPC 130 (Pb.)" and further amendment was made in the Rules in the year 2005 i.e. 15.12.2005 whereas the plot was allotted in the year 1993 and amendment in the Act cannot operate retrospectively. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of M.P. and ors. Versus Yogendra Shrivastava", 2010 (1) SCT 434 that the 'right and benefits already earned or acquired under the unamended rules cannot be taken away by amending the rules with retrospective effect'.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 14 - H Gupta - Full Document

1.Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban ... vs Sunita Bhatia Wife Of Surender Bhatia, ... on 19 March, 2012

In another judgment of this Commission "Sunita Sharma Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust", in that judgment after discussing the judgment "HUDA Vs. Sunita", (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, "PUDA VS. Narinder Singh FIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2009 12 Nanda" Appeal No. 704 of 2006 decided on 26.5.2006, "Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab"(supra), it was held that the complainant is a 'consumer'. However, the counsel for appellant could not controvert the judgments referred above to justify how the complainant is not 'consumer'.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 2 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Tehal Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 27 October, 1978

In another judgment of this Commission "Sunita Sharma Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust", in that judgment after discussing the judgment "HUDA Vs. Sunita", (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, "PUDA VS. Narinder Singh FIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2009 12 Nanda" Appeal No. 704 of 2006 decided on 26.5.2006, "Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab"(supra), it was held that the complainant is a 'consumer'. However, the counsel for appellant could not controvert the judgments referred above to justify how the complainant is not 'consumer'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 63 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Shanti Devi on 24 September, 2004

6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statements, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum videimpugned order observed that for the first time non-construction fine/charges were introduced in 1988 but FIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2009 7 the possession was not delivered to the complainant and in case the possession was not delivered then non-construction fine/charges cannot be demanded as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Vs. Shanti Devi", 2005 (1) CLT 496 (Supreme Court), therefore, the complainant was not required to pay the non-construction fine/charges and the charges have been deposited by the complainant due to coercive method adopted by OP No. 1. Regarding enhancement charges the indemnity bond was executed by the Society in favour of the Trust and not by the individual, therefore, Society can demand the charges not Ops. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and OP No. 1 was directed to refund non-construction fine of Rs. 1,39,200/-, Rs. 2300/- and development charges of Rs. 52,800/- but prayer for the refund of enhancement charges of Rs. 17,080/- was declined.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - S N Variava - Full Document

Sunita Sharma vs Ludhiana Improvement Trust on 31 January, 2013

In another judgment of this Commission "Sunita Sharma Vs. Ludhiana Improvement Trust", in that judgment after discussing the judgment "HUDA Vs. Sunita", (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 479, "PUDA VS. Narinder Singh FIRST APPEAL NO. 1278 OF 2009 12 Nanda" Appeal No. 704 of 2006 decided on 26.5.2006, "Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab"(supra), it was held that the complainant is a 'consumer'. However, the counsel for appellant could not controvert the judgments referred above to justify how the complainant is not 'consumer'.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next