CWP No.410 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.8656 of 2010 in/and CWP No.410 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2010 **** Banarsi Dass Saini . . . Petitioner VS. Chairman Jalandhar Improvement Trust & anr. . . 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. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar to execute the Conveyance Deed in his favour in respect of Plot No.366 measuring 16 marla in Development Scheme No.74.3 & 33, Jalandhar. (2). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and the records perused. (3). The undisputed facts are that the above-mentioned plot was allotted to the petitioner by the Improvement Trust vide allotment letter dated 19.01.1983 (Annexure P1). As per clause (ii) of the CWP No.410 of 2009.doc - 2 – allotment letter, the petitioner was required to raise the construction within the two years from the date of allotment. The petitioner, however did not raise any construction. Meanwhile a Civil Suit was filed against him and the Improvement Trust, by one Smt. Sumitra Rani and others in August, 1992 in respect of the plot in question. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 30th May, 2005 and the appeal preferred by the appellant (Sumitra Rani) was also dismissed on 24th January, 2008 (Annexure P8). (4). In this manner, the subject plot remained under litigation from August 1992 to January 2008. (5). The respondent-Trust has refused to execute the Conveyance Deed on two counts. According to the respondents, the petitioner is liable to deposit the extension fee for the delay in raising the construction, besides the requisite Stamp Duty Charges. (6). The petitioner is said to have deposited the stamp duty charges on June 2010. As regards the extension fee, namely, the penalty for not raising construction over the plot, I am of the considered view that since the petitioner failed to raise the construction as per the terms and conditions of allotment within a period of two years from the date CWP No.410 of 2009.doc - 3 – of allotment, he is liable to pay the extension fee for the period from January 1985 onwards excluding the period when the subject plot remained under litigation (i.e. from August 1992 to January 2008). The respondents are accordingly held entitled to recover the extension fee for the period except the period under litigation. (7). For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to assess and communicate the arrears of extension fee to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which the petitioner shall deposit within a period of two weeks thereafter. Upon deposit of the extension fee, the respondents are directed to execute the Conveyance Deed within a period of one month. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 08.07.2010 vishal shonkar