C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : 22.10.2008 Surjit Singh Sial and others Petitioners. VERSUS State of Punjab and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Jaishree Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? JORA SINGH,J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to refund the excess amount charged as extension fee amounting to Rs.222087/- in respect of plot No.1116-C, Sector 71, Mohali. Residential Plot No. 1146-C, measuring 407 Sq. Yds. Sector 71, Urban Estate Mohali, was allotted to Shri Bhupinder Singh Grewal vide allotment letter No. PHB- ALLOT-A-13-89/9945 dated 28.7.1989 (Annexure P-1). Possession of the plot was given to the allottee. Jagdish C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 2 - Singh was the general power of attorney of Shri Bhupinder Singh Grewal (Annxure P-6) and plot No. 1146-C vide Sale Deed dated 28.8.2003(Annexure P-4) was sold through attorney after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' from respondent No.3. Before the grant of No Objection Certificate, respondent No. 3 compelled the original allottee to deposit Rs. 2,22,087/- as revised extension fee and only after deposit of Rs.2,22,087/-, no Objection Certificate was to be issued and in these circumstances, Rs.2,22,087/- was deposited by Shri Bhupinder Singh in the office of respondent No.3( vide Anneuxres P-2 and P-3) under compulsion in order to get the No Objection Certificate, that original allottee had included the amount of revised extension fee in the sale deed, that the amount was paid to Bhupinder Singh through his attorney. The petitioners completed the construction and had applied for sewerage connection and the connection was given vide certificate dated 31.12.2003 (Annexure P-5). Extension fee was recovered from the petitioners by the original allottee and the original allottee by executing GPA surrendered all his rights in the plot to the present petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to recover the illegal extension fee recovered by respondent No.3. Notices dated 29.12.2004 and 26.9.2006 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) were issued to the respondents to refund the extension fee recovered illegally. Reply to the C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 3 - notice dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P-12) was filed by the respondents to the effect that decision rendered by this Court vide its judgment dated 4.5.1999 in the case of Tehal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Civil Writ Petition No. 13648 of 1998, is not applicable in this case. Plot was allotted by Punjab Housing Development Board , Chandigarh, which was governed by the provisions of Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 and the Punjab Urban Estates (Development & Regulation) Act, 1974. The Punjab Housing Board was abolished and its assets and liabilities were transferred to the PUDA/GMANDA. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed joint written statement and contested the writ petition inter-alia, on the ground that the plot in question was allotted in the year 1989 and the allottee failed to make construction on the said plot. Original allottee did not apply for extension to construct the house. Extension fee was deposited by the original allottee and had obtained 'No Due Certificate' from the department to sell the plot in question. Original allottee was to clear all the dues before obtaining permission to transfer the plot. When the construction was not raised within time, then allottee was to deposit extension fee but the original allottee had not raised construction on the plot for a period of 14 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that plot No. 1146C was allotted to Shri Bhupinder Singh Grewal C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 4 - vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.7.1989. Original allottee through his attorney sold the plot in question as per sale deed dated 29.8.2003 (Annexure P-4) but before obtaining “No Objection Certificate” to transfer the plot. Original allottee was compelled to deposit extension fee and extension fee was deposited vide receipts dated 22.8.2003 and 27.8.2003 (Annexures P-2 and P-3). Extension fee was recovered from the petitioners by the original allottee while executing the sale deed. Petitioners after purchasing the plot in question had the power to apply to refund the extension fee after decision by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. There was news that extension fee was recovered illegally, then notices dated 29.12.2004 and 26.9.2006 (Annexures P-10 and P-11) were issued for the refund of extension fee. Reply to the notices is dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P-12). Claim of the petitioners was rejected on the allegation that decision of this Court in Tehal Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that Allotment of plot No. 1146-C was in the year 1989. Original allottee did not raise construction for a period of 14 years. As per law, extension fee was deposited. No objection Certificate was obtained to transfer the plot. Petitioners have no locus standi to apply for the refund of extension fee voluntarily deposited by the original allottee. We have considered the submission of learned C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 5 - counsel for the parties. First contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that whether respondents are to charge the extension fee in view of Tehal Singh’s case (supra). Allotment of the plot in Tehal Singh’s case (supra) was in the year 1994. Notice was issued to deposit extension fee. Contention of the petitioner was that impugned demand is ultravires to the provisions of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (General) Rules, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as 1995 Act). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that impugned notices are illegal and were quashed and demand of extension fee was declared ultravires to the provisions of 1995 Act. PUDA was directed to grant suitable extension in the time limit to raise construction subject to the payment of fee specified in Rule 13 of 1995 Rules. Annexure P-7 is the copy of the judgment in Tehal Singh’s case (supra) against the impugned judgment, SLP was filed, but the same was dismissed. Annexure P-8 is the copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Civil Writ Petition No. 18996 of 2001 (Sant Kaur Jabbi and another v. State of Punjab and others) and in some other Civil Writ petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that demands raised by the petitioners to recover extension fee are not genuine. Demand notices were quashed. In this case, allotment of plots was made in the year 1976. On 3.11.2000 the Estate Officer PUDA issued a demand notice for recovery extension fee. Judgment in the case of C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 6 - Tehal Singh’s case (supra) was considered particularly when against the judgment in the said case, special leave petition was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In the present case, allotment was in the year 1989. Plot in question was purchased by the writ petitioners vide sale deed dated 28.8.2003.Construction was to be completed by December,2004. Sewerage connection was obtained on 31.12.2003, but before issuing “No Objection Certificate” to execute sale deed through Attorney, original allottee was directed to deposit Rs.2,22,087/- as revised extension fee. Writ petitioners had issued notice Annexure P- 10 dated 29.12.2004. Reply to the notices is dated 12.1.2007 (Annexure P-12) but request of the writ petitioners was declined on the allegation that judgment in Tehal Singh’s case (supra) did not help to the writ petitioners but in view of the law laid down in the above said writ petitioners, approach of the respondents is not correct one. As per allotment letter no condition that construction is to be completed within three year5s and if not completed then extension fee is to be paid. In view of all discussed above, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to refund revised extension fee i.e. Rs.222087/- to the petitioners. (M.M.KUMAR) ( JORA SINGH ) JUDGE JUDGE 22.10.2008 Anoop C.W.P No. 2572 of 2007 - 7 -