409 e1 1 IN THE HIGH 4 CHANDIGARH t 1 CWP No 407of2010 Date 4 ParveenKumar Petitioner Versus Stateof Haryanaandothers espondents 2 CWP No 19936of2009 Madan Mohanandothers aPetitioners Versus 1 StateofHaryana and others 3 CWP No 511 of2010 0 0 Om Parkash Petitioner Z Versus C5 State ofHaryana and others I e 4 CWP No13860of2009 Z RajKumar son ofSadhuRam 8 others ePetitioners 5t V2 Versus StateofHaryana andothers 5 CWP No 14506of2009 m3 Lekh RajSoni c another mPetitioners Z Versus 00 H3ryana Marketing Boardc another 6 CWP No 14547of2009 mn Z Lalit Kumar 8eothers Petitioners 11 Versus Haryana Marketing Boardc another 7 CWP No 15394of2009 Mls DarshanLal Kumar c others Petitioners Versus 4vea StateofHaryana and others 8 CWP No 19533of2009 Mehtab Singh8 others ePetitioners Versus StateofHaryana and others Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 410 WP No 407 of2010 2 9e CWP No 14760of2009 Kashmiri Lal Petitioner Versus StateofHaryana andothers 10 CWP No 17252of2009 RichhpalSingh Petitioner Versus StateofHaryana and others j CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI r Presentl Mr SS DinarpurAdvocate for the 0 0 Mr RD ShannaDAG Haryana 49 Mr Arnit Sharma Advocate for no2 to 6 I S 8 PERMOD KOHLIJ lORALI Z All thesepetitionsinvolve common of law based r uponidentical facts Thesepetitions are being of by I this common order C Z Sincethe issues are general in nature factsof each case are not QO beingdiscussed However resume of the factsis beingnoticed from CWP nm No407of2010 Z tl Market Committees Bhiwani and Pipli Kurukshetraissuedadvertisementsinviting for of plotsin open auction in New Grain Markets establishedin thesedistricts W All thepetitioners allottedplotsin theopenauction 25010of the bid were lnoney was to be at the initial stagewhereasrest of the 75Io sale pricewas to be within 30 daysof the receiptof allotment letter withoutinterest or in half yearlyinstallmentswith interest c of 75Io per annumaccruingfrom the date of iissuance of allotment letter One of the 4 conditionsin the allotmentletterrequired the allotteeto complete the 17 J Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 411 1 42WP No 4070f2010 3 COnstructiOIlwithin one year from thedateofallotment It is common case of all the petitioners that neitherthe Slte was readyfor construction nor physical was offeredto thepetitioners despite requests no6 vide letterdated1911986 askedthe to deposit the total amount within 15 days It is statedthatthe the amount of installmentsalongwith interest andpenalinterest It is case of m the that despitedepositof the amount in some cases the r possession was not deliveredby the Market Committee and 0 0 from time to time for deliveryof physical of the I Ca9 allottedplotsSomeofthe petitioners howeverstartedraisingconstructlOll and the construction of shop e Petitionerwas issued a show 4 Z cause notice dated 252006 whythe plotbe not resumed 1 for raisingconstruction without and demarcation L 4 Petitioner conveyed that he has raised the construction in the year 2007 He was issuedanotherletter dated 2272008 to appear before Z e 4 the authoritiesfor violationof theconditionsno2 and 17 of the allotment r 4 letter In themeantime the issuedan advertisementdated a Z 2402008 grantingextension of 1 years for raisingconstructionto the 5 Qm allotteeswho were allottedplotspriorto 1032000 In responseto the advertisementthe communicatedto the that lIl Vlew ofthe latestpolicydecision dated243008 the is entitled to raise 4ee construction It is allegedthat on this replybeingfiled the notice issuedto the petitionerwas not pressedand to the contraryanotherletter dated 182009 was issued Rs2751001 as noneconstructionfee for the period we 161987 to 3122008 in thelightof the decisionof the boarddated142009 Petitioner an 1 Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 412 WP No 407 of2010 4e the demandbut the same was not considered The filed CWP No 8151of2009 titledas ParveenKumar Vs State andothers This petition was ofwith a directionto the to decidethe within a periodof threemonthsfrom the dateof receiptof certifiedcopy of the order The of the has been vide order dated i 162009 andthe have this Coun and soughtfollowing reliefsl 0 0 issuea writ in the nature ofCertiorarithereby thenotice dated1822009 AnnexurePelOlvidewhich an 4 amountofRs2751001 is beingdemandedfrom the asnonconstruction feefor theperiodfrom l6987 to 31122008and 81s0for the orderdated 16112009 P13Jvidewhich the Z dated2432009 PIlo was dismissed by no and 2 r io issue a writ in the nature f Mandamusthereby directing the not to resume theplotofthe and I 3 iiil alsofor directing the not to charge any non Z construction fee interestor penalty etc fromthepetitioner and toissuethe certificateofthebuilding constructed m bythepetitioner on his plotallottedbyMarket Committee since he had the entireamount as perthe Wo terms8 conditionsmentionedin the allotmentletter Z P Or Ll in the replyjustified their action and demand of nonconstruction fee on the groundthat the failed to raise construction for numberof years It is furtherpleaded that there was no 4 of deliveryof physical of the plotas the allotment itself was the mode of deliveryof It is also pleaded that the raisedthe constructionwithout demarcationandsanctionfromthe competent and thus the construction raised by the 1S illegal Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 413 0WP No 407of2010 5 Similar issue has been consideredbythis Court in a bunchof writ petitionsbeingCWP Noe 1122 of 2003 titled as Raksha Rani Vse HSAMB and others and otherconnectedmatters decidedon 6122010 On consideration of the various relieduponbythe authorities includingthe of Honble SupremeCourt in case of UeTe ChandigarhAdministration and another Vse AmarjeetSinghand 1 others as JeT 2009 41SC 39 and MunicipalCorporation Ct Chandigarh Vse Investments PvteLtde as 2006 1 0 0 Scc 109 and following observationshavebeenmadele I C5 4r 11 All cases toframing ofstatutory rules I dated1032000 shall be bythe contract Under the contractthereis no conditionor covenant that theliabilityto Z payinterest penalinterestshall be uponproviding 2 r facilitiesamenities Such oftheallotteeswhowere allotted plotspriorto 1032000 are liable to pay interest I in accordancewith the terms and conditionsofthe allotment t Z letter 29Suchofthe allotteeswho were allottedplotsafter2000 are CO liable topay interestandpenal thedate0Herof m was made Thepossession is to be the Z dateofbasicfacilitieslike roads water supply le are madeavailable Thus theliabilityto pay interestunder the provisions becomes thedate basic facilitiesare provided andpossession is 0Hered 4 31In sofaras theliabilityto pay is concerned at the time ofallotmentofplotsin theyear 1988 therewas no provision either in the contract or any of extension feeExtensionfeefor thejirsttime came to be introduced videpolicydecision dated29A1998 and thus the becomespayableonlyin respectofplots whereconstruction has not beencarried out in accordance withthe terms and conditionsof policydated Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No 407of2010 6 29A1998 3J Issuesbeingsimilar thesepetitions are being of 111 termsofthe Copyofthis orderbeplaced on eachconnectedfile PERMOD KOHLO 4 JUDGE 265e20110 0 lucky 0 C5 IAoeIl q e 2 IZ I Z CCl 7 Z m Radhika 2014.04.21 11: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document