IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9343 of 2007 Date of decision: January 30, 2009. Mrs. Anju Bala ...Petitioner(s) v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-18) whereby extension fee has been demanded from her regarding plot No.3149, Sector 38-39, Samrala Road, Ludhiana. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit. As per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the extension fee upto 31st December, 2006 has already been paid by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled for refund of the extension fee already deposited by her. Learned Counsel for the Respondents fairly concedes that a similar controversy has been decided by this Court in favour of the allottees like the petitioner in CWP No.8965 of 2003 (Simmerjit Kaur Bhullar v. PUDA), decided on 19.8.2005. He further points out that the PUDA has preferred SLP (Civil) No.3549 of 2006 against the above mentioned judgment and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 27.2.2006, has stayed the refund of the amount. Learned Counsel for the Respondents undertakes that the benefits, if any, flowing from the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Simmerjit Kaur Bhullar's case (supra), shall be granted/extended to the petitioner also. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above undertaking. January 30, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge