IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 17498 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 19.02.2009 Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner versus HUDA and another ...Respondents A N D C.W.P NO. 6235 OF 2008 Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner versus HUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. 17498 of 2007 and No.6235 of 2008 filed by the same petitioner. In the first writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the imposition of penal and compound interest on the allotment price of Plot No. 236, Sector-6, Karnal, whereas in the second writ petition, he seeks quashing of the resumption order passed on the ground of non-construction of the said plot. C.W.P NO. 17498 OF 2007 -2- Suffice it to state that the above mentioned plot was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 06.11.1989 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner failed to deposit 15% of the allotment price within the stipulated period, followed by repeated defaults in payment of the installments towards 75% of the allotment price. The written statement filed on behalf of the respondents reveals that it was after a series of notices that the petitioner paid a few installments and without adhering to the time schedule given in the allotment letter. In fact, in the year 2002, the resumption proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner vide Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2002 (Annexure R-11). He was thereafter called upon to pay the balance amount of Rs.19,52,653/-, besides Rs.1,73,578/- as penalty and Rs.2,82,082/- towards the extension fee. There is a dispute between learned counsel for the parties as to whether or not the petitioner has now paid the entire dues including the installments, penal interest, compound interest and the extension fee. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was liable to pay about Rs.21 lacs as on 31.03.2008 besides more than Rs.8 lacs as extension fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that during the pendency of this writ petition, the entire dues have been cleared. Meanwhile, the respondents have resumed the plot on account of its non-construction within the stipulated/ extended C.W.P NO. 17498 OF 2007 -3- period. The said resumption order has been challenged by the petitioner in the second writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated April 11, 2008 (in C.W.P No. 6235 of 2008) took notice of the petitioner's undertaking that he will construct the house within six months and shall submit the building plan within four weeks. The period for submission of the building plan was further extended for another four weeks vide order July 28, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in deference to the above mentioned order(s), the building plan has been submitted and on that very day all the dues have also been deposited by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents are unable to admit or deny the aforesaid plea. While giving up the challenge to penal/compound interest, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he accepts the imposition thereof and if there are any arrears on that count, he will deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of notice to that effect. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances noticed herein above, especially the petitioner's undertaking that he is ready to pay the penal/ compound interest or penalty etc., both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner's clearing all the dues, including the penal/ compound interest, extension fee, as well as, the penalty, if any, the respondents shall sanction the building plan in accordance C.W.P NO. 17498 OF 2007 -4- with the Regulations and the petitioner will have to raise construction within a period of six months, as per his undertaking, from the date of sanctioning of the building plan, failing which the resumption order shall stand revived. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 19, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE