R.S.A. No. 4236 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4236 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.1.2009 K.L. Chawla ....Appellant Versus Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The appellant by way of this regular second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree 4.1.2006 passed by the learned lower appellate Court partly decreeing the suit for declaration. The plaintiff/appellant, is allottee of a residential plot in pursuance of the allotment letter dated 5.3.1973. He was asked to pay the extension fee and enhanced price for additional area, allotted to him. The plaintiff challenged the demand raised by the respondent/authority on the plea that the possession in pursuance of the allotment was given to him only on 19.10.2000, and, therefore, there R.S.A. No. 4236 of 2006 (O&M) -2- was no question of charging extension fee. It is also the case of the palintiff/appellant that as the conveyance deed was not given to the appellant/plaintiff, he could not raise loan for raising construction and, therefore, the demand of extension fee was bad in law. The challenge was also on the ground that the demand raised was exhorbitant, and not permissible, as the allotment was made for the area allotted to him and no additional area beyond allotment letter stands allotted to him subsequenty. The learned trial Court decreed the suit as prayed. Judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was impugned on the ground that the defendant/respondents were entitled to claim additional charges as the area allotted was in excess. It was also pleaded that extension fee was to be charged from the date of allotment. The learned lower appellate Court partly allowed the appeal but did not accept the plea of the respondent/defendants qua additional amount and the judgment and decree. During the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant took a stand that extension fee as claimed could not be demanded as the possession of the plot was given only on 9.10.2000 and, thus, the extension fee could be claimed after permissible period, to be calculated w.e.f. 9.10.2000 i.e. date of handing over of possession. Learned lower appellate Court has came to the conclusion that for the purposes of calculation of extension fee, it is the date of possession which is material and not the date of allotment. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned lower appellate Court committed an error in modifying the judgment in spite of finding referred to above. R.S.A. No. 4236 of 2006 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the appellant states that the substantial question of law, which arises for consideration of this appeal is: "Whether the decree granted by the learned lower appellate Court is contrary to the finding recorded in the judgment and thus perverse and deserves to be modified and corrected?" The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the substantial question of law is that once the learned Court has held that the starting point for claiming extension fee would be date of possession, there was no justification to permit the defendant to recover extension fee from 9.10.2000 without excluding the time permissible for raising construction. There is force in this contention. As per Act and rules framed by the respondent, extension fee is chargeable after permissible period for raising construction. Extension fee is in nature of penalty for not raising construction as per rules. Thus, the provisions are required to be strictly construed. The substantial question of law as framed, deserves to be answered in favour of appellant. The appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is modified and it is ordered that the respondent would be entitled to charge extension fee only after 8.10.2002 i.e. period permissible under the Rules for raising construction, by taking starting point to be 9.10.2000 i.e. date of possession. Appeal disposed of. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 22, 2009 R.S.