RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.7.2009. Dr. Surender Sahai ....Appellant Versus Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. Present:- Mr. Anuraag Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sudhir Parmar, Advocate for Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. **** The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned First Appellate Court whereby the defendants/appellants appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff is challenging memo dated 13.9.2001 claiming a sum of Rs. 12,325/- from the plaintiff on account of development charges for providing electric connection in the house of the plaintiff situated in un- authorised colony. It was the case of the plaintiff that electric connection was provided in his house in the year 2000 but the plaintiff has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,325/-as development charges subsequently. It was alleged that such charges are illegal as the colony in which house of plaintiff is situated is fully developed and the development charges were paid to Municipal Council Thanesar and it is the Municipal Council Thanesar which is providing all the facilities like sewerage, roads, drainage and electricity etc and therefore, the colony in which the house of plaintiff is, is not authorized colony, which may entitle the defendants to claim charges. In reply it was pointed out that Municipal Council Thanesar has submitted report on 11.1.2001 pointing out that Sapra colony in which the house RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M) 2 of plaintiff is situated is an un- authorised colony. A circular was issued on 20.4.2000 that electric connection be released to various consumers in the un- authroised colony on payment of development charges. In terms of sale circular issued by the Board, the development charges were claimed from the plaintiff. The electric connection was allowed subject to deposit of development charges at the rate of Rs. 15/- sq. yard and Rs.25/- per sq. yard for the plot holders having plot size upto 100 sq. yards and exceeding 100 sq. yards respectively. Ex.D5 is list of un-authorised colonies in which Sapra colony is mentioned at Sr. No. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that town planning scheme was under consideration at the time of grant of electric connection therefore, the colony cannot be said to be un-authorised in respect of which the respondent can claim development charges. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the said argument. Though the town planning scheme was pending in respect of Sapra colony but on the date of grant of electric connection Sapra colony was un-authorised colony and therefore, in terms of circular Ex. D1 the plaintiff has been rightly found liable to pay the development charges. There was no sanction by any competent authority in respect of said colony. Therefore, the house of the plaintiff can be said to be only in an un authorised colony. In view thereof, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 24.7.2009 JUDGE Reema