IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.03.2011 Dharambir Singh ...Petitioner Versus HUDA and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner is an owner of the plot bearing No. 92 in Sector 17, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. This plot was allotted to respondent No. 4, Harphool Singh, who is none other than the father of the petitioner. Initially, this plot was allotted on 07.03.1980 but was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 06.02.1992. It is averred that on 04.07.1994, the plot was again transferred in the name of respondent No. 4 in an illegal manner. The petitioner, accordingly, filed civil suit on 17.01.1995 seeking declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the transfer of this plot on the name of his own father. The civil suit was dismissed on 06.03.2002 against which the petitioner filed an appeal, which was allowed on 11.11.2002. The petitioner, thereafter filed an execution petition for compliance of this degree and accordingly the plot was re-allotted by the respondent/department in the name of the petitioner subject to Civil Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2010 -2- the final outcome of the challenge raised against the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court. There is, however, a dispute between the counsel for the parties whether any Regular Second Appeal has been filed before this Court or not. Be that as it may, the prayer made in the present writ petition is that the petitioner has now submitted the site plan for raising the construction on the plot. In response, the petitioner is apprised that he is required to pay extension fee. The petitioner represented against the same and sought waiving off the extension fee for the period for which the issue of allotment of the plot was under litigation. The petitioner again sent reminder on 30.03.2009. After seeking some information, the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court on 28.10.2009 praying for disposal of his representation. On 27.11.2009, the respondents have rejected the prayer of the petitioner for waiving off the extension fee. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to challenge the said order. Reply on behalf of the respondents/HUDA has been filed. It is stated that no cause of action has accrued to the petitioner seeking waiving off the extension fee. It is also pointed out that there is no policy of waiving off extension fee even for the period during which the allotment may have remained under litigation. As per the respondents, the prayer of the petitioner has, therefore, been rightly declined. I have heard the counsel for the parties. The only submission made before me by the counsel for the petitioner is that Civil Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2010 -3- the petitioner was not in a position to apply for construction till the time, the plot was transferred in his name. This issue remained under litigation from 1994 to 2007 and ultimately when the plot was transferred in his name. This submission may sound a bit justified but deeper analysis would show how an attempt is being made to circumvent law. The plot initially was allotted in the name of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner and his father took 12 years to manage transfer of this plot in the name of the petitioner. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner again got this plot transferred in his name on 04.07.1994 by illegal means. The petitioner then relies upon a civil suit filed which was dismissed. Petitioner appealed and managed to get the plot transferred in his name. Respondents/HUDA though impleaded but was proceeded exparte in the suit. The order thus, was obtained in this manner. The petitioner as well as his father had an ample time to make an application seeking permission to construct from 1980 to 1992. The petitioner himself would have made any such application from 1992 to 1994. Counsel for the respondents is, therefore, justified in saying that this is just a ploy to avoid paying of extension fee. It is pointed out that adopting this mode, the petitioner has been able to avoid paying of stamp duty charges on conveyance deed and is now wanted to have further advantage of waiving off extension fee. No instructions, law or precedent has been cited before me to show that the extension fee could be waived off under such circumstances where the plot was under litigation. One can understand if the litigation in regard to the allotment was with the respondents and so it Civil Writ Petition No. 1451 of 2010 -4- could be said that an allottee was not able to seek permission to construct and so extension fee be waived or exempted. Here is a case where the petitioner and his father were either contesting with a plan or genuinely but that would not be a valid reason for them to seek waiving off extension fee which is chargeable as per the rules of HUDA. I find no justification in the prayer made in the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. March 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE