Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.10.2009 Neelam Pandhi …Petitioner Versus Punjab Urban Development Authority and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner was allotted a residential plot at Urban Estate Sultanpur Lodhi. She had deposited along with application 10% amount of the total price. The remaining 15% amount was to be deposited within 60 days from the issuance of the letter of allotment to complete 25% price of the plot. Petitioner prayed for extension of time for depositing the balance 15% amount. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is a legal provision that time can be extended upto 180 days in case a written request is made. Counsel further submits to justify her bonafide, petitioner has submitted a draft of Rs.17,000/- including surcharge and penal interest within 180 days of the issuance of letter of allotment. Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2009 2 Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Punjab Urban Development Authority states that in the brochure circulated inviting applications. Following clause has been specifically provided:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “8. GENERAL i) This allotment shall be governed by the provision of Punjab Regional And Town Planning and Development Act, 1955, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, as amended from time to time. ii) Plot shall be used only for residential purposes and not for any other purposes whatsoever. iii) No change of land use shall be permitted. iv) No fragmentation/sub-division of plot or structure shall be permitted. v) All general and local taxes, rates, fees and cesses, imposed or assessed on the said plot/building by any Authority under any law shall be paid by the allottee. vi) PUDA shall have the full right, power and authority at all times to do through its officers and/or representatives, all acts and things which may be necessary and expedient for the purpose of enforcing Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2009 3 compliance with all or any of the terms, conditions and restrictions imposed and to recover as first, charge upon the said plot, the cost of doing all or any such act and things and all costs incurred in connection thereof, or in any way relating therewith. vii) Any change in address must be immediately intimated to the Estate Officer by the registered post. viii) In case of breach of any condition(s) of allotment or of regulations or non-payment of any amount due together with the penalty, the plot or building, as the case may be, shall be liable to be resumed and in that case an amount not exceeding 10% of total amount of consideration money, interest and other fees payable in respect of plot shall be forfeited as per the provision of Section 45(3) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (hereinafter to called the Act)”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Counsel submits that petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy and the dispute can be referred to the sole Arbitrator i.e. Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority or any person Civil Writ Petition No. 1839 of 2009 4 appointed or nominated by him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is willing to take recourse to alternative remedy and he will make a prayer for appointment of the Arbitrator for redressal of the dispute. However, counsel has stated that in the present case, plot was cancelled vide letter (Annexure P3) on 3.11.2008. He had filed the present writ petition in this Court on 20.1.2009. Taking these facts into consideration, respondents be barred from raising plea of limitation for referring the dispute to the sole Arbitrator. I find merit in this contention. The letter of cancellation was issued on 3.11.2008, immediately within two months, petitioner had approached this Court. Now the respondents have raised a plea that dispute ought to have been referred to the Sole Arbitrator. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in case petitioner, within one month, approach the respondents for appointment of Arbitrator, the needful will be done and the plea for appointment of Arbitrator shall be construed within period of limitation. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 23, 2009 “DK”