C.W.P. No.460 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.09.2008 M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. .....Petitioner versus Chief Administrator-cum-Competent Authority, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.Sakesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr.O.S. Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. Petitioner-company received a letter of intent dated 16.11.2006 from respondent for setting up a residential colony named as Sahara City Home. An application for extension of time was submitted to respondent on 19.12.2006 to grant further 30 days' time to complete the formalities as required under the letter of intent. Time was, thus, extended uptill 14.1.2007 vide a letter issued by respondent dated 19.12.2006. Petitioner does not seem to be aggrieved by conditions of the letter of intent, except the one and only condition of External Development Charges (EDC), which are on higher side than the rates actually applicable in the case of petitioner. According to petitioner, the residential colony is to be set up within 5 kilometers of periphery of `A' class Municipal Town and for that area, only the rate of Rs.2.5 lacs per gross acre, as per policy dated 7.12.2001 of the respondent, would be applicable, whereas, in the letter of intent, respondent C.W.P. No.460 of 2007 2 has levied external development charges at Rs.15.09 lacs per acre. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the higher rate of development charges, as per policy and notification dated 20.1.2006, would apply only in respect of area situated in Mohali Township, and as per letter of intent dated 16.11.2006, petitioner's colony is to be set up in village Kurari, District Mohali and Rampur Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. These areas do not fall within Mohali Township, but are situated, rather, within 5 kilometers of its periphery for which only a rate of Rs.2.50 lacs per gross acre is to be charged as external development charges. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that vide order dated 7.12.2001 (Annexure P-3), issued to Sh.Y.P.S.Bhalla, Chairman, Licence Holders Colonies Association, Ludhiana, in respect of `A' class municipal town and within 5 kilometers of its periphery, an amount of Rs.2.50 lacs per gross acre would be charged as external development charges. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner's representation to decide his case in the light of order dated 7.12.2001 (Annexure P-3), is still pending for decision. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that petitioner would provide the external development works only within its own pocket of 147 acres, whereas, his residential pocket would be connected with the National Highway (NH-2) and the infrastructure to be used by petitioner towards the main entry of Township, would be provided by the Government. Further, for residential pocket, petitioner would use electricity connection only from 66 KV electric line as the electricity would not be produced by the petitioner of its own. Moreover, items like garbage and other waste materials would also be disposed of by petitioner on M.C. C.W.P. No.460 of 2007 3 land without any preliminary/secondary treatment. In view of aforesaid, EDC charges, as per notification of the new periphery policy formulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab, dated 20.1.2006 and subsequent notification dated 12.7.2006 (vide No.18/35/2002-1 HG 2/6390) would apply. Further, according to learned counsel for respondent, rate of charges (Annexure P3) relates to only Municipal and Corporation Towns and not to periphery of Chandigarh i.e. within 16 kilometers from the boundary of Chandigarh qua which only policies dated 20.1.2006 and 12.7.2006 would be applicable. However, at this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that for the present he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent to consider and decide petitioner's pending representation on merits in the light of policies and notifications prevailing at the time of issuance of letter of intent, within a time frame, to which learned counsel for respondent also agrees, subject to deposit of requisite charges, as demanded by respondent-authority, before the date of hearing of said representation. Thus, without going into the controversy impugned herein and expressing any opinion on merits of this case, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice, to dispose of this writ petition while granting liberty to petitioner to approach the competent authority and urge his submissions, as raised herein, before him with reference to policies and notifications prevailing at the time of issuance of letter of intent, so far as that relate to the rates of external development charges. Moreover, we would like to make it clear that the competent authority shall decide first the question as to which of the notifications, referred to by rival sides in this writ petition, C.W.P. No.460 of 2007 4 would apply in case of petitioner's land, and after the amount of external development charges in the light of such decision, is deposited, he shall proceed to decide petitioner's appeal/representation on merits. On deciding this question in terms of our directions, the respondent shall decide petitioner's appeal/representation on merits within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order, after giving proper opportunities of hearing to all the parties concerned. Needless to say that in case of any grievance arising out of the decision on representation/appeal, parties would be at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, if so advised. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 10-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO