IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13494 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 7th July, 2010. Roshan Lal & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate Versus HUDA & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Siddarth Batra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek quashing of the Memo dated 11.09.2008 [Annexure P-15] issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority demanding an additional amount of Rs.3,26,850/- towards allotment price of the built-up SCF No. 23, Commercial Complex, Sector 13, Karnal. The undisputed facts are that vide public auction [Annexure P-1], various booth sites/SCFs etc. were sold by the HUDA at Karnal. SCF No. 23 measuring 5.5x22 meters was one of the such property and the petitioners being the highest bidders, were allotted the same. The allotment letter dated 01.01.1988 [Annexure P-3] describes the dimensions of the SCF to be 5.5x22 meters. It is, however, not in dispute that the size of the subject SCF at the spot is 5.5x25 meters as Verandah having 3 meters width has also been included in the constructed portion, increasing the size of the SCF to 137.5 meters. This fact having come to the notice of the authorities, the petitioners were served with notice dated 22.12.1998 [Annexure P-6] asking them to deposit a sum of Rs.1,30,951/- as additional cost of the SCF in question towards the increased land measuring 16.5 square meters. The petitioners contested the said demand and after a long correspondence, the impugned notice dated 11.09.2008 [Annexure P-15] demanding a sum of Rs.3,26,850/- which includes interest @ 15% per annum, has been issued, by the HUDA. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit wherein it is explained that the petitioners bade for the SCF measuring 5.5x22 meters but the rear verandah of the site which was originally meant as a public passage, was included in the constructed portion thereby increasing the size of the SCF to 137.5 square meters. Since the adjoining SCFs were of the same size, i.e., 137.5 square meters, the increase made by the petitioners was regularized subject to their payment of the additional cost towards the increased portion. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record including the site plan and photographs produced on record. It is apparent from the series of official documents on record that the SCF auctioned in favour of the petitioners was measuring 5.5 x 22 meters and its rear portion appears to have been extended later on as may be seen in the photographs. Since the petitioners have included three meter wide verandah as a part of the SCF, the respondents have rightly demanded the additional cost/ price and no fault, to that extent, with the impugned notice can be found. The petitioners, however, are right in contending that no interest can be claimed by the respondents for the period prior to issuance of the show cause notice dated 22.12.1998. Similarly, it is not a fit case where the respondents can be permitted to impose penalty as the defence plea taken by the petitioners was not altogether frivolous. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part only to the extent that respondent No. 3 is directed to re-calculate the amount payable by the petitioners after applying interest @ 18% per annum but without any penal interest/penalty. The petitioners shall deposit the amount so assessed within a period of three months from the date the same is conveyed to them. If the petitioners are still of the view that the size of the SCF is not 5.5 x 25 meters as claimed by the respondents, they shall be at liberty to seek re-measurement in their presence by the authorities. Disposed of. Dasti. July 07, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE