IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 21478 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 07.01.2009 Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon ...Petitioner versus PUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This Civil Writ Petition seeks quashing of the demand notices dated 15.10.2007 and 05.05.2008 (Annexures P-13 and 14) whereby the PUDA authorities at Patiala have demanded non- construction fee from the petitioner, amounting to Rs.2,79,072.25/- on account of non-construction of plot No. 4170-C, Phase.II, Urban Estate, Patiala. In response to an application moved by the petitioner in the year 1971, plot bearing No. 4170-C, Urban Estate, Phase.II, measuring 507.5 sq. yards was allotted to the petitioner on 25.02.1980 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-. The aforesaid allotment, however, was cancelled and the site was resumed due to non payment of the non-construction charges on 24.01.1997. The petitioner filed an appeal which was finally accepted and pursuant thereto, the possession of the plot was handed over to her on 26.06.1994. C.W.P NO. 21478 OF 2008 -2- It appears that there were minor variations in the size and dimensions of the plot at the spot which was found to be measuring 500 sq.yards as against the allotted size of 507.5 sq. yards. Taking advantage of the fact that there was a delay in delivery of the possession and/or a discrepancy in the size of the plot, the petitioner approached the State Consumer Commission claiming damages on account of the increase in the cost of construction during the long period of over 18 years. The State Consumer Commission granted compensation to the tune of Rs.9,69,500/- to the petitioner which, on an appeal by PUDA, was reduced by the National Commission to the tune of Rs.4 lacs only. There is, however, no dispute that the petitioner has been given possession of a plot measuring 500 sq. yards only and not as per the dimensions given in the conveyance-deed. It is also not in dispute that even after taking possession in the year 1994, the petitioner has not raised construction and the plot is lying vacant. The authorities have now to imposed non- construction charges amounting to Rs.2,79,072.25/- as on 31.12.2008 on the petitioner vide communication dated 05.05.2008 (Annexure P-14). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. C.W.P NO. 21478 OF 2008 -3- It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that since the respondents have failed to deliver possession of a plot measuring 507.5 sq. yards as per the dimensions given in the conveyance deed executed in the petitioner's favour and vide letter dated 13.09.2004 (Annexure P-8), the PUDA authorities agreed to increase the plot size by adding some area from the green belt, the petitioner was fully justified in not raising the construction. It is then contended that non-construction fee cannot be demanded as the petitioner has been deprived of constructing the house on account of the fault attributable to the respondents. It is also argued that unless the conveyance deed is modified/rectified by reducing the size of the plot from 507.5 sq. yards to 500 sq. yards, the title continues to be defective, therefore, also the petitioner is not obliged to raise the construction. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and on perusal of the pleadings/documents on record, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The subject plot was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 25.02.1980 (Annexure P-1). Clause – I thereof reads as follows : “(1) Plot No. 4170-CP Phase II measuring 500 yds. In Patiala, Urban Estate has been allotted to you. The cost of the said plot is Rs.25,000/-”. C.W.P NO. 21478 OF 2008 -4- It would, thus, be seen that the petitioner's entitlement was for a plot measuring 500 sq. yards only. The petitioner has been allotted a preferential corner plot. At the time of execution of the conveyance deed, the authorities might have found the size of the plot more than 500 sq. yards and the conveyance deed was accordingly executed for a plot measuring 507.5 sq. yards. However, on re-measurement, the size of the plot at the spot has been found to be 500 sq. yards only. When the petitioner had already been given possession of a plot, as per the size mentioned in the allotment letter dated 25.02.1980 (Annexure P-1), the hue and cry made by her regarding the defect in the size of plot appears to be a mere pretext for nor raising the construction. The petitioner got possession of the subject plot in the year 1994. Even if its size was not 507.5 sq. yards, still it was inconsequential for the purpose of construction, in as much as, no additional construction could possibly be raised over a small area of 7 ½ sq, yards. There can hardly be any justification for not raising the construction for more than 14 years. Suffice it to say that petitioner appears to have retained the plot to earn premium and not for any bona fide necessity. That being so, the respondent-authorities are entitled firstly to charge fee for non- construction and if so required, to resume the same as per law. Dismissed. JANUARY 07, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE