R.S.A No. 776 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 776 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : April 22, 2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another, ...... Appellant (s) v. G.L.Sahni, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. G.C.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.2229-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 174 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.2230 C of 2009 For the reasons recorded, C.M is allowed and delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A No.776 of 2009 This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower R.S.A No. 776 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent challenging the resumption order which had been passed since he had not paid the penal interest @ 18% compounded. The main question which has been raised is that of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the HUDA Act. However, even if that question is answered in favour of the appellants yet counsel for the appellants has not been able to refute the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roochira Ceramics v. H.U.D.A and others, AIR 2002 SC 2380, wherein it was held that the HUDA could charge interest only @ 10%. Counsel for the respondent asserts that at the rate of 10%, the entire amount of interest has been paid. He further states that in case, there is any shortfall, the respondent shall deposit the same within 15 days of the intimation of such an amount by the appellants. Even as regards question of jurisdiction, I find that the lower appellate Court has held that mandatory notices were not served upon the respondent. This being so, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the HUDA Act would not come to the aid of the appellants since it would have to be held that the proceedings have been initiated in violation of the law. Consequently, on both these grounds, this appeal has to be dismissed. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 776 of 2009 (O&M) ::3::