CWP No.16549 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16549 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: October 29, 2009. Dharambir Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Sharad Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): The prayer of the petitioner in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 3 to waive off the extension fee of plot bearing No.92, Sector 17, Gurgaon for the period under which it remained under litigation and further to grant more period for construction of the aforesaid plot. The facts which emerge from the documents placed on record of the present case are that plot in dispute was allotted to proforma respondent No.4, who is the father of the petitioner, by the respondent- authorities on 7.3.1980 and its possession was delivered to him on 24.9.1982. The aforesaid plot was transferred in the name of petitioner vide memo No.210 dated 6.2.1992. The aforesaid plot was again transferred in the name of respondent No.4 vide memo No.1843 dated 4.7.1994. Claiming the aforesaid transfer dated 4.7.1994 as illegal, the petitioner filed civil suit CWP No.16549 of 2009 -: 2 :- against the respondents. Respondent No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.11.1997 in the aforesaid civil suit. However, the said suit was contested by the respondent-authorities. Vide judgment dated 6.3.2002 passed by Shri V.P. Sirohi, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon , the aforesaid civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed. However, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2002, the appeal was accepted by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon holding that the petitioner was owner in possession of the plot in question and the transfer order dated 4.7.1994 was held to be illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the aforesaid litigation, the petitioner could not make construction over the aforesaid plot and thus, he represented to the respondent-authorities to struck off non- construction fee and permit him to construct 25% house over the plot in question. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon vide his letter dated 28.7.2008 sought advice from the Chief Administrator, HUDA as to whether the extension fee in the case of the petitioner may be waived off for the period during which the plot remained under litigation. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents have failed to waive off the non- construction fee and sanction the site plan of the petitioner for construction of the house and, thus, aggrieved against the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondents, he has approached this court by way of the present writ petition for redressal of his grievance. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments of the petition and the documents on record. Admittedly, the plot in question was initially allotted to CWP No.16549 of 2009 -: 3 :- respondent No.4, who is the father of the petitioner on 7.3.1980. The possession of the aforesaid plot was also delivered to him on 24.9.1982. Even as per the averments made in the petition, the litigation with the respondent-authorities was started only after the transfer dated 4.7.1994 in favour of the father of the petitioner. Not only this, the aforesaid litigation pertained only with regard to the declaratory rights of the petitioner and there was no dispute with regard to the possession of the petitioner. Moreover, no foundation of facts has been laid by the petitioner in the present writ petition with regard to the imposition of non-construction fee and sanction of site plan of the plot in question by the respondent- authorities. The petitioner has failed to place on record the necessary facts as to when he applied for sanction of site plan for construction on the plot in question or with effect from which date the non-construction fee was leviable or was imposed. In spite of the fact that the petitioner has prayed before this court that the respondents be directed to waive off the non- construction fee and sanction site plan of the plot in question, no documents has been placed on record from which it can be made out that the petitioner has ever submitted his site plan for the plot in question, or what is the amount in question which is to be waived off and relates to which period. No doubt that the petitioner has alleged that he submitted his representation Annexure P-3 to the respondents and the same is pending with the respondent-authorities. However, from the perusal of the representation Annexure P-3, I find that even in the aforesaid representation, the petitioner has failed to mention anything with regard to submission of site plan for construction of his house over the plot in question or the period or amount of non-construction fee imposed upon him. CWP No.16549 of 2009 -: 4 :- Moreover, the petitioner has also failed to satisfy the court with regard to any rules/policy/instructions of the respondent-authorities on the basis of which he is entitled to claim waiver of non-construction fee and sanction of site plan submitted, if any. In the absence of the basic foundation of facts, as aforesaid, the petitioner has failed to establish his right to seek a writ of mandamus against the respondents, as prayed. No merit. Dismissed. October 29, 2009. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge