LPA No. 167 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 167 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.02.2011 The Chairman, Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar and another. ......Appellants Vs Banarsi Dass Saini son of Late Sh. Amir Chand Saini, c/o Lakshmi Khad Store, VPO Taragarh, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur (Punjab). ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Salil Sagar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Smarth Sagar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the caveator – respondent. * * * * RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 470 of 2011 Delay of 123 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 167 of 2011 This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 08.07.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. By the aforesaid judgement the learned Single Judge has passed the following operative direction:- LPA No. 167 of 2011 2 “For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to assess and communicate the arrears of extension fee to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order which the petitioner shall deposit within a period of two weeks thereafter. Upon deposit of the extension fee, the respondents are directed to execute the Conveyance Deed within a period of one month.” The facts, in brief, may be recapitulated as follows:- The respondent/writ petitioner was allotted a plot of land by the respondent-Improvement Trust in the year 1983. He was required to raise construction on the plot within two years which he did not. In fact, he did not raise any construction till the year 1992. For the alleged lapse on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner the Improvement Trust had two options open i.e. either to extend the period for raising of construction by levy of extension fee or to resume the plot. The Improvement Trust did not take any steps to resume the plot. In the year 1992, the plot allotted to the respondent/writ petitioner got involved in a litigation initiated by a third party wherein an order of injunction was passed restraining any construction on the land. The respondent/writ petitioner, therefore, could not have raised any construction on the plot during the pendency of the litigation which ended in the year 2008. Thereafter, the present dispute with regard to the liability of the respondent/writ petitioner to pay extension fee arose which was answered by the learned Single Judge by holding him to be so liable but not for the period when the property was under litigation. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. LPA No. 167 of 2011 3 Mr. Sagar, learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that the litigation in question that had erupted over the plot allotted to the respondent/writ petitioner will not wipe out the entitlement of the Improvement Trust to extension fee during the said period. In support reliance has been placed on a judgement of the Apex Court in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and others (2003), 8, SCC, 648. Mr. Sagar, learned Counsel by extensively quoting from the judgement of the Apex Court has tried to invoke the principles of restitution in favour of the Improvement Trust. We have considered the facts of the case recited above as well as the facts and circumstances in which the judgement of the Apex Court was rendered in South Eastern Coalfields Ltd's case (supra). In the said case, the rate of royalty on coal was enhanced by the Central Government pursuant whereto the State Government became entitled to collect the same from the Coalfields. The Coalfields, being entitled in law passed on the burden to the consumers who had to pay the enhanced price of coal on account of enhancement of royalty. The consumers, 60 in number, instituted different writ petitions wherein interim orders were passed staying the levy of enhanced royalty. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed. It is in these circumstances that the Apex Court had laid down that the consumers will be liable to pay the enhanced royalty during the period the stay order was operative. We do not see how the ratio of law laid down in the said judgement could apply to the facts of the present case. It is, therefore, our considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge making the respondent/writ petitioner liable to LPA No. 167 of 2011 4 pay the extension fee excluding the period for which the property was under litigation is correct and would not require any interference. The LPA, therefore, is dismissed by refusing admission. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 14.02.2011 Amodh