CWP No. 19570 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19570 of 2010 Date of decision July 27, 2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority ....... Petitioner Versus Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon and another. ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the enhancement of amount as demanded by HUDA to be recovered from the respondent with interest from the date when HUDA offered possession to the allottee. Learned counsel has three objections; i) the issue of housing is not a subject which can be decided by the Permanent Lok Adalat; ii) even the statement filed did not contain signatures of the party iii) interest had not been provided on the additional amount that had become payable by the allottee from the date of allotment. 2. The subject of housing has been brought through CWP No. 19570 of 2010 2 amendment in a notification issued on 19.5.2009 by the Haryana Government, Administration of Justice Department. The objection relating to jurisdiction cannot therefore be sustained. The objection that the case was taken up for consideration even before the reply was signed is a matter of a defect in procedure and will not have significant bearing on the merits of contentions and therefore the said objection is also not worthy of acceptance in this writ petition. 3. As regards the provision for interest, the Permanent Lok Adalat has taken note of the fact that the enhancement of the price on account of the higher compensation that HUDA was reported to have paid in acquisition proceedings was `3,67,050/- and interest was provided from the date when the property was offered possession to the allottee. The contest by the allottee was only on account of the fact that HUDA demanded originally interest from the date of formal order of allotment in the year 1981, although, possession was delivered only in the year 2008. I am of the view that the liability to pay interest for the additional amount which HUDA was required to pay cannot arise even before the property was offered possession of to the party. The award by the Permanent Lok Adalat passed under the circumstances for the interest to be payable from the date of delivery of possession is justified and I find no reason for interfering with the same. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 27, 2011 archana