In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … L.P.A.No.1859 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.10.2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..Appellants. Versus Parveen Kumar and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the Appellants. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. C.M.No.4980 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 194 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M.No.4978 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. C.M.No.4979 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 318 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.1859 of 2011 1. The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.11.2009 deciding a bunch of nine petitions by a common order as according to the Learned Single Judge, common questions of law and fact arose in all the cases. The writ petition from which the present appeal arises is mentioned at Sr. No 6 in the impugned judgment. 2. The facts of the present case as culled out from the petition (not mentioned in the judgment) in brief are that first respondent purchased plot No. 1592, Sector 9, Urban Estates, Karnal measuring 299 Sq. Mtr. from the original owner. The appellant-HUDA was informed of such sale and the new owner was issued a re-allotment letter dated 7.10.1999 by HUDA. The sole issue involved in this case is with regard to extension fee in the background of non construction on the plot and its effect in the light of policies floated by HUDA itself granting amnesty to plot owners. 3. The Learned Single Judge has decided all these matters by referring to facts of CWP No.1164 of 2008 titled as “V.K.Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others.” The appellants have a policy in place, issued and modified from time to time in the matter of grant of extension of time for construction of buildings on residential and commercial plots which is subject to charging of extension fee. Some of these policies mentioned in the petition are dated 9.2.2006, 29.1.2007 and 28.4.2007 etc. and ultimately a policy circular was issued on 28.8.2009 granting a one time relaxation for completion of buildings till 30.11.2009 on payment of double of the extension fee applicable for the previous year, for each year of delay. 4. The appellants have been threatened with resumption of the property subject matter of this case on the ground of non-construction within the time allowed. This has been done through notice issued in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The present writ petition appears to be have been filed on 14.2.2008. The written statement of HUDA was filed on 21.7.2009. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, modified extension policy dated 28.8.2009 was promulgated granting one time relaxation for completion of buildings till 30.11.2009 on payment of double the extension fee. The ultimate directions issued by the Ld single judge are as follows:- “After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that resumption order is very harsh order as sit deprive the house owner from the roof which he intend to build on the plot allotted. Order of resumption should be passed in extreme cases. Since respondents No. 2 and 3 have already issued a fresh policy and have agreed to give one time relaxation subject to payment of double the extension fee applicable for the last year in the case of each plot owner for each year of delay, all the nine writ petitions can be disposed of with an observation that in case petitioners submit building plans within 60 days, they shall undertake before Estate Officer Haryana Urban Development Authority Karnal, to construct the house in accordance with the sanctioned building plans within one year from the date of approval of the building plans. Petitions, as per the policy of respondents No. 2 and 3 dated 28.8.2009, circulated vide memo. No. A-UB-K.K.-2009/30727- 49, shall pay double the extension fee in consonance with the policy.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. The thrust of the argument advanced by the Learned counsel Shri Deepak Balyan and taken for the first time in appeal is that the modified policy of 28.8.2009 of HUDA encompasses only three situations for grant of concession of one time relaxation for completion of building within one year from the date the buildings plans are sanctioned on payment of double extension fee with cut off date 30.11.2009 which are as follows:- “(a) Plots where Building Plan was got approved, Construction was started and Completion Certificate applied for but not issued due to some deficiencies. (b) Plots where Building Plan was got approved, Construction was started and Completion Certificate applied for, since the required level of construction reached late. (c) Where construction has been completed without getting Building Plans approved, (compoundable violation) provided they applied for grant of Occupation Certificate after raising minimum construction till 30.11.2009.” 7. The further grounds are that the case of the respondent does not fall within the aforesaid parameters; the petitioner never submitted building plans for approval nor completed the construction; and that the order of the Learned Single Judge amounts to policy making which is impermissible. It is noteworthy that the modified policy dated 28.8.2009 had came into existence after filing of the written statement by HUDA and has been made foundation of the impugned judgment on the strength of non denial of its applicability to the cases in hand by counsel of HUDA itself and giving out that the cases were capable of grant of one time relaxation. Except in excerpt reproduced in the memo of appeal its full text strangely has not been placed on record. We draw adverse inference by such withholding. Since this new facet re (a) to (c) supra of the modified policy was neither pleaded by HUDA nor argued before the Learned Single Judge and to what effect it shall remain outside the domain of the appeal. Resumption or threat of resumption has been found to be ‘very harsh’ in the circumstances of a case by the Learned Single Judge who has held that resumption is a matter of last recourse. We do not see where the Learned Single Judge has fallen in the prohibited arena of policy making as made out in the grounds. No fault can be found in the just and equitable order passed and the directions issued on submitting building plans, furnishing of undertaking to construct building within one year from sanction of building plans as per Policy of HUDA dated 28.8.2009. Besides, the 15 year period required for making construction has to run from 1999 when HUDA re-allotted the plot to the first respondent and conferred ownership rights on him. We reject the argument as made in the appeal that 15 years should start winding from 1991 when the plot was in the hands of the original allottee. 8. In view of the above, we uphold the order impugned as just and equitable and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE October 3,2011 nk