CWP No.14236 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 14236 of 2006 Date of Decision: 5 - 11 - 2009 Gurcharan Singh ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by Gurcharan Singh with a prayer that order dated 23.12.2005, Annexure P6, whereby petitioner has been called upon to pay Rs.60,000/- as penalty for non-construction be set aside. A perusal of Annexure P6 shows that petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.60,000/- as penalty for non-construction of the building on CWP No.14236 of 2006 [2] the plot allotted to him by the respondent – Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. Non construction charges have been demanded for a period commencing from 2002 to 2005 at the rate of Rs.150/- per square yard. In this petition, petitioner has given a detailed history of litigation. It will be necessary to notice those details, as petitioner has urged that he has been fastened with development charges by respondent No.2 with a mala fide intention, as it has not accepted success of the petitioner in various rounds of litigation in the right spirit. Case of the petitioner is that his land was acquired by respondent No.2 – Improvement Trust, Ludhiana in the category of Local Displaced Persons. He was allotted a plot measuring 100 squre yards. He deposited Rs.4920.79 as a part of price of the plot but possession was not given to him due to abandonment of some area of the Scheme. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.17938 of 1995 which was accepted. Petitioner was allotted Plot No.229-F at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard. The rate being exorbitant, petitioner filed another writ petition in this Court bearing Civil Writ Petition No.1452 of 1998. The petitioner also succeeded in that. The order passed by this Court was assailed in Special Leave Petition. Respondents failed therein. Counsel state that respondent No.2 had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court second time as allotment was also challenged by respondent No.2. In the present writ petition, it was pleaded that petitioner cannot be fastened with the charges for non-construction as the area is totally un-developed, full of wild weeds and lack basic amenities for human habitation. It is further urged that there is no infrastructure laid by the Improvement Trust and hence petitioner could not raise the construction. Further more, it is submitted that petitioner has submitted CWP No.14236 of 2006 [3] building plan to the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana to whom the Scheme was transferred in 1995 and the Municipal Corporation has refused to accord sanction and approval to the site plan. To fortify this contention, petitioner has placed reliance upon the affidavit submitted by Balkar Singh Brar, Senior Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The Municipal Corporation in the affidavit has taken the following stand:- “2. That in reply to para No.15 & 16 of the writ petition, it is submitted that petitioner had submitted a representation (Annexure P-9) to the Corporation with a request to get the area developed. Acting on the same, the Scheme was called for from the Respondent Trust. After going through the Scheme, it was noticed that as per the layout plan, a 2.2 acre pocket – A was shown as open area. In fact, this pocket was planned by the Respondent Trust in the year 1995. The road network at the site was to be provided by the Respondent Trust. In the absence of any road network, the Respondent Corporation was not in a position to take any further action for approval of the plans of the area. Accordingly, this aspect was pointed out by the Corporation to the Respondent Trust vide letter dated 05.04.2006 (P-10). However since no road network has been laid at the spot by the Respondent Trust, Municipal Corporation is not in a position to sanction the building site plans of the area.” The stand taken by the Municipal Corporation is contrary to the stand taken by the Improvement Trust. Improvement Trust has stated that they are entitled to recover non-construction charges from the allottee as CWP No.14236 of 2006 [4] the area was fully developed. The following portions from their written staement will be necessary to be reproduced below to notice assertions made by the respondent – Improvement Trust before this Court:- “.....Later on, the said scheme ha been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana on 12.03.1985, which looks after the maintenance works of the area. Subsequently, Block F was carved out in the said scheme in the area, which was being initially shown as Green Belt. In the said Block, number of plots were carved out and one plot is allotted to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble High Court. It is relevant to mention here that in the said block the aforesaid basic amenities were provided in the year 1995. Hence, the order dated 23.12.2005 impugned by the petitioner in the present petition is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on this ground alone.” xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 3. That it is most relevant to state here that F Block, wherein the plot of the petitioner is situated, all the amenities have been provided by the answering respondent including sewerage, water supply and pakka roads, etc. It is apposite to mention here that the part was developed in the said block and the work of the same was completed on 10.11.1997. Furthermore, the work of construction of work in the said block was completed on 23.01.1998. The provision of street lights was made by the answering respondent in the said block and CWP No.14236 of 2006 [5] the entire work for the same was completed on 24.12.1997. The said fact gets substantiated from the perusal of the Works Register maintained by the answering respondent regarding the aforesaid development work carried on various dates. The true photocopies of the said works register are being annexed herewith as Annexure R-2 (Colly).” Apparently, the stands taken by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Improvement Trust, Ludhiana cannot be reconciled as the same contradict each other. Improvement Trusts and the Municipal Corporations function under the aegis of Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, if two departments of the same organisation take contrary stand, the Court has no other option except to burden the State with heavy costs, but taking into consideration plight of the petitioner that authorities may not visit upon him with vengeance, I do not deem appropriate to adopt this course. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary that a fact finding enquiry be conducted by the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab to find out whether development of the concerned area was undertaken or not; whether petitioner was deprived to raise construction or not; and whether petitioner can be fastened with liability to pay non-construction fee or not. The fact finding enquiry shall be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that all concerned will be associated with the enquiry by the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 5, 2009. JUDGE RC CWP No.14236 of 2006 [6]