-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 4908 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 14, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 4908 of 2010 (O&M). Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad, through its Administrator / Estate Officer ... Appellant VERSUS M/s. Elofic Industries Ltd, Faridabad through Lt. Col. N.K. Banerjee, Manager (Admn.) ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short `HUDA'), Faridabad (defendant-appellant) is in second appeal -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 4908 of 2010 (O&M). aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent against HUDA for declaration and mandatory injunction was decreed. The only question for determination before the Courts below was as to whether HUDA could enhance the development charges from Rs.10/- per square yards, as were earlier demanded when the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff i.e M/s. Grover Plastic Industry, from whom the plaintiff had purchased the land in question, had applied for change of land use, to Rs.62/- per square yard without laying down any policy. No material had been placed on record by HUDA to show as to under what instructions the demand had been raised from Rs.10/- per square yard to Rs.62/- per square yard. In the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. Vs. HUDA (Civil Writ Petition No.3219 of 2007 decided on 30.9.2008), this Court held that the demand, as raised in the instant case, cannot be raised, penalty cannot be imposed and interest in case of default of payment cannot be charged at the rate of more than Rs.10/- per square yard. The judgment rendered by this Court in M/s. ABB Ltd. 's case (supra) was challenged by HUDA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11905 of 2009, which was dismissed by the Apex Court on 15.5.2009. In this view of the matter, no interference can be -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 4908 of 2010 (O&M). made with the findings recorded by both the Courts below. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 14, 2011. JUDGE ak