C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. Date of Decision : 02.12.2008. Rohit Kumar Gosain Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G.Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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. The instant petition is directed against order dated 5.3.2007 passed by Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon- respondent No.3, raising demand of Rs. 17800/- plus Rs.180700/-, which was required to be paid by 31.3.2007, failing which necessary action was to follow. Another sum of Rs.86,350/- on account of extension fee for delaying construction upto 3.12.2007 has also been demanded. The petitioner was admittedly allotted residential plot No. 599 C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 2 Sector 31-32/A, Gurgaon vide allotment letter dated 17.4.1989 (Annexure P-1). He deposited 25% of the total amount i.e. Rs.24, 750/-. However, there was irregularity in making payment of six annual installments. As per Clause 6 of the allotment letter the balance amount was required to be paid either in lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual installments together with 10% interest on the remaining amount. He was required to raise construction within two years from the date of offer of possession after approval of the proposed building plans from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the erection of building. On the excuse that offer of possession was not made to the petitioner an attempt has been made to argue that offer of possession having been made on 31.3.2007, the extension fee could not have been levied from the earlier date. Likewise, the rate of interest as contemplated under Clause 24 of the allotment letter has been sought to be revised. In the written statement filed by respondent No.3, it has been pointed out that offer of possession of the plot was made to the petitioner on 25.3.1992 under a registered A.D. letter at his correct address (Annexure R-3/1). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the offer of allotment has been made in 1997 as per the assertion made by the petitioner. Further submission of the petitioner that interest at the rate of 18% per annum cannot be charged is also devoid of merits because C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 3 in case of default, Clause 24 would come in operation and interest accordingly has to be charged. Learned counsel has also disputed the statement of account placed on record by respondent No.3 as Annexure R-5/5 by stating that there are discrepancies. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the instant petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Once the offer of possession dated 25.3.1992 (Annexure P-3/1) under registered A.D. cover has been issued then the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that he has not received offer of possession or he has got possession on 8.9.1997. According to the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if a registered letter has been issued at the correct address then presumption would arise that it has reached to the addressee. Therefore, in the face of letter dated 25.3.1992 ( Annexure R-3/1) such a dispute cannot be raised. Accordingly, the contention raised on the aforementioned disputed fact is hereby rejected. Likewise, we do not find any merit in the contention that lesser rate of interest then stipulated in letter of offer of allotment is to be charged. The petitioner has agreed to the terms and conditions of allotment therefore there is no room for deviation from those terms and conditions. However, question of calculation given in the statement of account cannot be gone into by this Court and for that matter petitioner may approach respondent No.3 for reconciliation, if there is any discrepancy. He shall file detailed representation within a period of two weeks to C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 4 respondent No.3 and if such assertion is made, respondent No.3 shall pass detailed order within two weeks thereafter. The rate of interest and all other ancillary matter has been settled in the regular letter of allotment. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 02.12.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 5 C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 6 23529 Notice of the application. Mr. Ashish Kapur Learned State counsel accepts notice. He does not raise any serious objection to the amendment sought in the writ petition particularly in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 15199 of 2008 decided on 25.11.2008. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Amended writ petition is taken on record. Notice of the amended petition. Mr. Kapoor learned State Counsel who is present in Court accepts notice. Four copies of the paper book of the amended petition alongwith complete documents given to him during the course of the day. Notice of motion to other respondents be served by dasti process. 23431 This is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is allowed. Haryana Power Generation Corporatilon Limited, through the Executive Enginer, R.G.T.P.P., H.P.G.C.L., Khedar (Hisar). Mr. Rana shall also file reply on behalf of the added respondents within two weeks with a copy in advance to the learned opposite counsel before the date fixed. List on 8.,1.2008. Interim order to continue. C.W.P.No. 4027 of 2007. 7