CWP No.18769 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18769 of 2009 Date of Decision: 02.07.2010 **** Pawan Arora . . . . Petitioner VS. HUDA and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns memo/letter dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P9) issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Karnal demanding extension fee to the tune of Rs.2,30,800/- as well as interest on the instalments and extension fee. (2). The solitary question raised on behalf of the petitioner is that since no possession of the site was offered, the respondents are not entitled to charge any extension fee and/or interest thereupon. (3). The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit wherein, it is specifically averred that after completion of development work, the petitioner CWP No.18769 of 2009.doc - 2 – was offered possession of the site vide letter dated 3720 dated 20th March, 2003, a copy of which has also been placed on record (Annexure R1). That being so, the disputed question of fact raised on behalf of the petitioner that actually the possession was not offered, cannot be entertained. (4). For the reasons afore-stated, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, as soon as the petitioner deposits the due amount, the respondents shall hand over the physical possession of the site in dispute, preferably within a period of one week thereafter. (5). Ordered accordingly. (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.07.2010 vishal shonkar