IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21289 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 19, 2008 Gurdial Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has challenged demand letter dated 15.12.2008 (P-3) issued by the Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, raising demand of Rs. 30,26,175/- on account of installments together with interest and penal interest and Rs. 1,70,100/- on account of extension fee in respect of Plot No. 92, Anaj Mandi, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, measuring 20 x 50 ft. A further direction has been sought for C.W.P. No. 21289 of 2008 issuance of direction to the respondents to receive the balance amount alongwith interest in terms of the speaking order dated 15.5.2008, passed by respondent No. 4 in the case of Shri Bhoj Raj Goyal and others. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in an open auction Plot No. 92, Anaj Mandi, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 16.5.1991 (P-1) for a sum of Rs. 2,71,000/-. After adjusting the amount of Rs. 67,750/- paid by the petitioner as earnest money, the balance 75% sale price could be paid either within 30 days in lump- sum or in six yearly instalments alongwith interest @ 12.5% as per the schedule given in the allotment letter. The first instalment was to commence on 16.11.1991. It has been asserted that despite deposit of 25% allotment price by the petitioner, specific possession or actual dimension in site plan of the plot in question was not handed over to the petitioner. The respondents also failed to develop the market by providing basic amenities such as water, street light and sewerage etc. It has been claimed that on 23.11.2008 the petitioner made an application to the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula-respondent No. 2 for handing over of specific possession alongwith dimension of Plot No. 92 to him. Instead of doing the needful, demand notice dated 15.12.2008 has been issued (P-3). In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner has made an effort to rely upon an order dated 15.5.2008, passed by the Executive Officer-respondent No. 4 in the cases of Shri Bhoj Raj 2 C.W.P. No. 21289 of 2008 Goyal and others wherein cases of some other allottees have been dealt with (P-4). It has been claimed that respondent No. 4 himself has admitted in his order dated 15.5.2008 that specific possession was not offered and the competent authority has directed the Market Committee, Jagadhri, not to charge the extension fee/interest on the ground of non-offering of specific possession of plots. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and without going into the merits of the case, we deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the representation of the petitioner, which shall be made by him under Registered A.D. cover within a period of 15 days from today. If such a representation is received, the competent authority shall decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation by passing a speaking order. 4. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 19, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3