IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 26.4.2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority ....Appellant Versus Arun Kumar ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 30.11.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 31.5.2008. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the demand of extension fee for non-construction over plot No.743, Sector 15, Part-II, Gurgaon, which was allotted in his favour, was arbitrary, illegal, null and void. He pleaded that the said plot was allotted to him on 8.6.1987 and he paid the entire cost of the plot and also the enhanced cost within the stipulated period as per terms and conditions of allotment letter. The appellant started resumption proceedings of his plot under the pretext that only one plot could be allotted to the family. This was due to the reason because the father of the respondent was allotted plot No.1052, in the same sector. He laid R.S.A.No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) -2- a challenge to the resumption proceedings which was accepted by the civil court and affirmed upto the High Court in the regular second appeal. Thereafter the plot was offered to him on 5.2.1992 by issuing a letter in his favour. At the same time demand of extension fee was made on the respondent on the plea that since the construction on the plot had not been carried out by the respondent, he was required to pay such extension fee according to the terms of the policy and instructions governing such issues. The appellant contested the suit and justified the demand of extension fee on the ground that the policy permitted them to do so. The trial court as also the first Appellate Court accepted the plea of the respondent and decreed the suit holding the demand of extension fee to be invalid. The respondent, who had deposited the extension fee during this interregnum to avoid any penal consequences was directed the refund of such amount along with interest for the period 1995 to 2001. This was directed to be done within a period of three months from the passing of judgment of the civil court on 30.11.2007. Dissatisfied with this the appellant had filed an appeal in which the findings of the trial court were affirmed. The same findings have now been challenged in this appeal to contend that the demand was justified. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant had forced the respondent into litigation on account of resumption proceedings which were held to be without any basis by three Courts. The litigation regarding the plot on account of resumption continued from 10.8.1995 to 1.8.2001. In this period R.S.A.No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) -3- when the plot was under resumption it is apparent that the respondent could not have raised any construction thereon. Therefore, the demand for extension fee was patently illegal and was rightly held so by the courts below. A contention has been raised before this Court that the refund could not have been ordered because the only remedy available to the respondent was to file a suit for recovery. If the demand so raised upon the respondent is to be seen, then even if the policy of the appellant is accepted, as per their own showing the extension fee could not have been demanded for two years from the date of offering of possession which in the case of respondent was 5.2.1992. Consequently, the demand from 5.2.1992. to 5.2.1994 could not be sustained in any eventuality. Therefore, the litigation regarding resumption proceedings continued from 1995 to 2001 and likewise this demand could also not be sustained. The respondent in order to avoid any complication was forced to deposit the amount on account of extension fee, the refund of which has been granted to him by way of impugned judgments. The Courts can always grant a relief to a person in order to do substantial justice between the parties and it is not necessary to force a litigant into a third round of litigation to get the necessary relief. The appellant who is a public authority is also expected to conduct its affairs in a responsible manner to mitigate the problems of the general public which it propounds to serve and not to become the obstructive tool. If the conduct of the appellant is to be seen, the same is seemingly unjustified. Neither the action of resumption of the plot nor the demand of extension fee nor the contention which has been raised before this Court seem to be R.S.A.No.1629 of 2010 (O&M) -4- justifiable. In fact it was expected of such a public authority to act fairly and to desist from even filing such an appeal which is not only frivolous but sans merit. The same has also been filed belatedly. Looking it from any angle the conduct of the appellant cannot be justified as they have forced a citizen to enter into a litigation and burdened the Courts also to waste public time on avoidable litigation. Consequently the appeal is dismissed both on merits as also on delay with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited before the legal services authority of Haryana. Trial Court to ensure recovery of costs. 26.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss