451 S 1 G IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB 8 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH P 1 CWP No 407 of2010 r Parveen Kumar ePetitioner Versus State andothers 2 CWP No 19936of 2009 1 MadanMohan and others ePetltioners Versus 1 CL StateofHyanaandothers 3 CWP N 511of2010 0 0 Om Parkash Petitioner I Versus 0 State ofHaryana and others I 4 CWP No 13860of2009 e Z RajKumar son of SadhuRam 8 otllers mPetitioners Versus C StateofHaryana andothers I 5 CWP No 14506of2009 Lekh RajSoni c another m4etitioners Z Versus 00 Haryana Marketing Board8 another 6 CWP No 14547of2009 em Z Lalit Kumarl others ePetitioners Il Versus Haryana Marketing Board8 another 7 CWP No15394of2009 Mls DarshanLal Sanjeev Kumar 8t others Petitioners Versus 4eeeeP StateofHaryana and others Respondents 8 CWP No 19533of2009 MehtabSingh8 others Petitioners Versus StateofHaryana and others Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 452 5 6 CWP No 407 of2010 m2a 9e CWP N 14760of2009 Kashmiri Lal mePetitioner Versus StateofHyanaandothers CWP No17252of2009 RichhpalSingh Petitioner Versus Stateof Haryana and others CORAMn HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLl 1 Present Mr SS Dinarpur Advocate for the 0 0 Mr RlO SharmaDAG I 0 Mr Amit SharmaAdvocatefor no2 to 6 I r 1VZB PERMOD KOHLIJ ORALI Z All thesepetitionsinvolve common questions of law based uponidenticalfacts Thesepetitions are being of by this common order L3 Z Sincetheissues are general in nature factsofeach case are not 00 beingdiscussed However resume of thefactsis beingnoticedfrom CWP Vm2 No 407 of2010 Z tl Market Committees Bhiwani and Pipli issuedadvertisementsinviting for of plotsin open auction in New Grain Mets establishedin these districts ee All the were allottedplotsin theopen auction 25010of thebid money was to be at theinitial stagewhereasrest of the75010sale pricewas to be deposited within 30 daysof the receiptof allotment letter without interestor in half yearlyinstallmentswith interest c of 75010per annumaccruingfrom the date of issuance of allotment Ietter One of the t conditionsin the allotmentIetter theallotteet0 complete the Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 453 CWP No 407 of2010 3 constructionwithin one year thedateofallotment It is common case of all the that neitherthe site was readyfor constructionnor was offeredto the despite requests no6 vide Ietterdatedll3986 askedthe to deposit thetotalamount within 15daysIt is statedthatthe the amount of installmentsalongwith interestandpenalinterest It is case of 1 tho that despitedepositof the ainount in some cases the L was not deliveredby the Market Committee and 0 U from time to time for deliveryof physical of the I C9 allottedplotsSomeof the howeveIstartedraising construction and the construction of shops e Petitlionerwas issued a show 4 Z cause noticedated 2532006 whythe plotbe notresumed 54 for raisingconstruction without and demarcation r 4 I Petitioner thathe has raisedthe constructionin the m1 year 2007 He was issuedanotherletterdated2272008 to appearbefore Z the authoritiesfor violationofthe conditionsno12 and17 of theallotment Qo er letter In themeantime the issuedan advertisementdated 7 Z 2472008 granting extension of 1 years for raisingconstructionto the allotteeswho were allottedplotspriorto 1032000 In responseto the advertisementthe petitioner communicatedto the that in view ofthe latestpolicydecision dated2402008 the is entitledto raise construction It is alleged that on this replybeing81edthenoticeissuedto the was not pressedand to the contraryanotherletter dated 1822009 was issued Rs2751001 as noneconstructionfeefor the period we 1 6987 to 3122008 in tohelightof the decision of the board dated142009 Petitioner an Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 454 4 CWP No 407 of2010 m4e the demandbut the same was ilot considered The filed CWP No 8151of2009 titledas ParveenKumar Vs State andothers This was ofwith a directionto the to decide the within a periodof threemonthsfrlomthe dateof receiptof certifledcopy of theorder The of the has been vide order dated m 169009 and the have this Court and Q soughtfollowingreliefsl 0 Ca 4 i lssue a Writin thenature ofCertiorarithereby I thenoticedated1822009 Pe101 vide which an C5 amountofRs2751001 is beingdemandedfrom the asnoneconstruction feefor theperiodfrom 16987 to I 31122008anddlsofor the orderdated 41 16112009 Annexure P31 videwhichtheappealcun Z dated2432009 lnnexure P ll was dismissed by no and 2 C ii issue a writ in thenature Of Mandamusthereby directing the not to resume tohcplotof the and 0 iio alsofor directing the notto charge any nonm Z constructionfee interestor penalty etc from the and to issuethe certiOcateofthebuildingconstructed m bythepetitioner on his plotallottedbyMwket Committee since hehad theentireamount as perthe 7 terms8cconditionsmentionedin theallotmentletter Z P or OL in the replyjustifled their action and demandof nonconstruction fee on the groundthat the petitioners failed to raise constructionfor numberof years It is 8lrtherpleaded that there Was 110 4eeee of deliveryof physical of the plotas the allotment itself was themode of deliveryof It is also pleaded that the raisedtheconstructionwithout demarcationandsanction from the authorityand thus the construction raised by the petitioner 1S illegal Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 455 1 4 CWP No 407 of2010 5sn Similar issue has beenconsidered bythis Court in a bunchof writ petitions beingCWP Noe 1122 of 2003 titled as Raksha Rani Vse HSAMB and others and other connectedmatters decidedon 6122010 On considerationof the vanous reliedupon bythe authorities includingthe of Honble SupremeCourt in case of U ChandigarhAdministration and another Vse AmarjeetSinghand others reported as JeT 2009 11SC 39 and MunicipalCorporation 0 Chandigarh Vs Investmcnts Pvt Ltde as 2006 0 0 SCC 109 and following observationshavebeenmade CS9 4r 1 All cases toframing rules I dated1032000 shall be bythecontract Under the contract thereis no condi1ionor covenont thattheliabilityto Z payinterestpenalinterestshall be uponproviding C facilitiesamenities Suchoftheallotteeswhowere allotted plotsprior to 1032000 are liable to pay interestand penalty I in accordancewiththe tenns andconditionsoftheallotment Z letter 2 Suchofthe allotteeswhowere allottedplotsafter2000 are ClO liable topay interestand penal thedateoer of emo Z possession was made Thepossession is to be lhe dateofbasicfacililieslike roads water sllpply r are madeavailable Thus theliabilityto pay interestlder the slatutory provisions becomespayable fromthe da1ebasic facilitiesareprovided is 0rcd 39In sofaras theliabilityto pay is concerned at the timeofallotmentofplotsin theyear1988 there was no provisioneither in thecontract or any statutoryprovisionfor Paymentof extension fee theJlrsltime came to beintroducedvidepolicydetisiondated29A1998 andthus the extensionfeebecomespayableonlyin respectofplots whereconstruclion hasnot beencarried out in accordance with the terms and conditions dated Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 CWPNoO7of2010 4 29A1998 13 Issues beingsimilar thesepetitions are being of 111 termsofthe Copyofthis orderbeplaced on eachconnectedfile PERMOD KOHLO JUDGE 1 1Z Iucky 0 Ca3 e Z r Co Z QO m2 Z Qe Rawat Seema 2014.04.15 15: 56 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document