IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.603 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.12.2009 Dr. Dalbir Kaur Dhillon. -----Appellant Vs. Punjab Urban Development Authority & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.2. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant against demand notices, requiring the appellant to pay non- construction charges for delay in raising construction on the plot in dispute. 2. Case of the appellant is that she applied for a plot at Patiala in the year 1971. On 25.2.1980, a plot was allotted to her but possession was not given. On 24.1.1997, the allotment was cancelled for non-deposit of non-construction charges. The appellant after taking departmental remedies, approached the Consumer Court and the appellant was ordered to be given compensation of about Rs.10 lacs. Thereafter, conveyance deed was executed but correspondence regarding completing the size LPA No.603 of 2009 of the plot continued. The appellant approached the respondent Estate Officer vide letter dated 8.11.2005, Annexure P-11, seeking actual physical possession and time for construction, apart from making other demands. Without responding to the said letter, she was asked to deposit non-construction charges against which writ petition, giving rise to the impugned order, was filed. 3. Learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the respondents dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had no justification for not raising the construction for 14 years after getting possession in the year 1994. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding of appellant having unduly delayed construction for 14 years is erroneous. The appellant never got physical possession and had no opportunity to raise construction, as pointed out in her letter dated 8.11.2005 on which no decision has been taken by respondent No.2. He refers to letters dated 13.9.2004, Annexure P-8 and 18.10.2004, Annexure P-9, indicating the dispute about the size of the plot to be given to the appellant. He also refers to letter dated 8.11.2005, Annexure P-11, stating that the appellant had no objection to allotment of the plot, subject to physical possession being given to her as also raising other points. It is undisputed that the said letter was never responded. 2 LPA No.603 of 2009 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that physical possession was given to the appellant and thus, the finding of learned Single Judge is justified. 7. We need not go into the question raised on merits, at this stage, as we find merit in the submission that respondent No.2 should have responded to letter of the appellant dated 8.11.2005 to resolve the points raised therein. Without doing so, action of proceeding to recover non-construction charges is not justified. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any final view on merits of leviability of non-construction charges, we direct respondent No.2 to pass an appropriate order after considering the documents Annexures P-8, P-9 and P-11 and giving the appellant opportunity to explain her view point. Such an order be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.2 will be at liberty to proceed with the demand for non-construction fee only after and in the light of decision so taken. 9. The appellant may appear before respondent No.2 on 4.2.2010 for further proceedings. 10. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 24, 2009 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3