IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2008 Randhir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pass an order for stopping misuse of the site auctioned by them in the City Centers in the Urban Estates of Haryana. A further direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has also been sought directing them to supply the zoning plan of the site i.e. Plot No. 1, District Shopping Centre, Jind, for C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007 construction of the hospital by the petitioner. The emphasis in the prayer is directed against respondent No. 4, who was allotted S.C.O. No. 14 & 15, District Shopping Centre, Jind, who is alleged to be misusing the building for hospital/nursing home. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 5.1.2001, the petitioner purchased Plot No. 1, District Shopping Centre, Jind, for a total price of Rs. 11,01,000/-. As per allotment letter bearing No. 65, dated 5.1.2001, the aforementioned site has been reserved for running a Nursing Home. It is claimed that no other plot has been earmarked for running of Nursing Home. The petitioner has paid the full price and possession of the site was handed over to him on 8.7.2003. The petitioner has alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have failed to provide facilities at the site like roads, sewerage and other basic amenities. It is claimed that the petitioner had applied for supplying the zoning plan in order to construct the Nursing Home, which the respondents are deliberately avoiding to supply. He has further alleged that on the one hand no zoning plan is supplied to him whereas on the other hand respondent No. 4 has been permitted to operate the Nursing Home in Show Room No. 14 & 15, District Shopping Centre, Jind, which was allotted to be used for any commercial purpose. The petitioner has placed reliance on the information received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to urge that building of SCO No. 14 & 15 is being misused for running hospital, which was completed by respondent No. 4 in the year 1998. The official respondents have also issued a notice to him under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity, ‘the 1977 Act’) asking respondent No. 4 to stop 2 C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007 misuse of the building for hospital purpose. However, no action has been taken. 3. In reply to the notice to show cause, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have asserted that they have ordered resumption of SCO No. 14 & 15, District Shopping Centre, Jind, vide order dated 23.11.2007 (R/1 & R/2). They have further averred that zoning plan for the Nursing Home site of the petitioner has already been supplied to him on 4.5.2004 by Registered A.D. post (R/3 & R/4). It has further been pointed out that an amount of Rs. 2,23,264/- is still outstanding against the petitioner. In para 3 of the reply on merit it has been categorically asserted that all the necessary facilities like Road, Sewerage, Water supply etc. have been provided in the year 1994-95 and they are continuously taking care of it. 4. In the separate written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 it is claimed that SCO No. 14 & 15, District Shopping Centre, Jind, was allotted for commercial purpose and is being used for that purpose only. He has not violated any of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter nor misused the aforementioned allotment. It is claimed that only in the year 1998, hospital was partly shifted in SCO No. 14 & 15, which include a Consultation Room, Lab, X-Ray Room, Ultra Sound Room and an office and therefore, no condition of the allotment letter is violated nor the above said activity can be termed as obnoxious within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1998. He has also claimed that the resumption order, which was passed by the Estate Officer on 23.11.2007 has been set aside in appeal filed by 3 C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007 respondent No. 4 under Section 17(5) of the 1977 Act and the matter has been remanded back vide order dated 27.2.2008 (R-4/1) with the remarks that it may be decided afresh after hearing the legal heirs of the allottee. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has purchased a plot on 5.1.2001. He has paid all the dues but failed to raise construction despite the fact that zoning plans have been supplied on 4.5.2004 by registered post. There are adequate facilities provided by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 which include roads, water, sewerage, electricity etc. and the same are available to the petitioner since 1994-95. No case is made out for coming to the conclusion that the basic amenities have not been provided so as to give birth to a lawful excuse of non-payment of charges/extension fee on account of non-construction. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh v. M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd., (2006) 4 SCC 109, wherein it has been observed that as long as basic amenities like kutcha road, drainage, drinking water, sewerage, street lighting have been made available then the allottee cannot make a complaint of lack of amenities and such a complaint would not constitute a valid excuse either to defer payment or to non-levy of charges like extension fee. Therefore we are of the view that the writ petition lacs merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The other argument that misuse by respondent No. 4 is continuing does not require detailed consideration in view of the fact 4 C.W.P. No. 7632 of 2007 that firstly action against respondent No. 4 has already been initiated by passing resumption order dated 23.11.2007 by the Estate Officer. The resumption order has been set aside by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.2.2008 (R-4/1) and the matter has been remanded back to the Estate Officer for taking a decision afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the aforementioned process would be taken to its logical end. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5