IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 407 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. Parveen Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 2. CWP No. 19936 of 2009 Madan Mohan and others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 3. CWP No. 511 of 2010 Om Parkash --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 4. CWP No. 13860 of 2009 Raj Kumar son of Sadhu Ram & others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 5. CWP No. 14506 of 2009 Lekh Raj Soni & another --Petitioners Versus Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board & another --Respondents 6. CWP No. 14547 of 2009 Lalit Kumar & others --Petitioners Versus Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board & another --Respondents 7. CWP No. 15394 of 2009 M/s Darshan Lal Sanjeev Kumar & others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 8. CWP No. 19533 of 2009 Mehtab Singh & others --Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CWP No. 407 of 2010 -2- 9. CWP No. 14760 of 2009 Kashmiri Lal --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents 10. CWP No. 17252 of 2009 Richhpal Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 6. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) All these petitions involve common questions of law based upon identical facts. These petitions are, accordingly, being disposed of by this common order. Since the issues are general in nature, facts of each case are not being discussed. However, resume of the facts is being noticed from CWP No. 407 of 2010. Market Committees, Jagadhari, Bhiwani and Pipli (Kurukshetra) issued advertisements inviting applications for purchase of plots in open auction in New Grain Markets, established in these districts. All the petitioners were allotted plots in the open auction. 25% of the bid money was to be deposited at the initial stage, whereas rest of the 75% sale price was to be deposited within 30 days of the receipt of allotment letter without interest or in half yearly installments with interest @ of 7.5% per annum accruing from the date of issuance of allotment letter. One of the conditions in the allotment letter required the allottee to complete the CWP No. 407 of 2010 -3- construction within one year from the date of allotment. It is common case of all the petitioners that neither the site was ready for construction nor physical possession was offered to the petitioners despite repeated requests. Respondent no.6 vide letter dated 19.3.1986 asked the petitioner to deposit the total amount within 15 days. It is stated that the petitioner deposited the amount of installments along with interest and penal interest. It is case of the petitioners that despite deposit of the amount in some cases, the possession was not delivered by the Market Committee and petitioners requested from time to time for delivery of physical possession of the allotted plots. Some of the petitioners, however, started raising construction and completed the construction of shops. Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 25.3.2006 communicating why the plot be not resumed for raising construction without obtaining possession and demarcation. Petitioner, accordingly conveyed that he has raised the construction in the year 2007. He was issued another letter dated 22.7.2008 to appear before the authorities for violation of the conditions no.12 and 17 of the allotment letter. In the meantime, the respondent-board issued an advertisement dated 24.7.2008 granting extension of 1 ½ years for raising construction to the allottees who were allotted plots prior to 10.3.2000. In response to the advertisement the petitioner communicated to the respondents that in view of the latest policy decision dated 24.7.2008 the petitioner is entitled to raise construction. It is alleged that on this reply being filed the notice issued to the petitioner was not pressed and to the contrary another letter dated 18.2.2009 was issued demanding Rs.2,75,100/- as non-construction fee for the period w.e.f. 1.6.1987 to 31.12.2008 in the light of the decision of the board dated 14.1.2009. Petitioner preferred an appeal-cum-representation CWP No. 407 of 2010 -4- against the demand but the same was not considered. The petitioner, accordingly, filed CWP No. 8151 of 2009 titled as Parveen Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others. This petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal-cum-representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The appeal/representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 16.9.2009 and the petitioners have accordingly approached this Court and sought following reliefs:- “ (i) issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the notice dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure P-10) vide which an amount of Rs.2,75,100/- is being demanded from the petitioner as non-construction fee for the period from 1.6.1987 to 31.12.2008 and also for setting aside the order dated 16.11.2009 (Annexure P-13) vide which the appeal-cum- representation dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure P-11) was dismissed by respondent no.3; and (ii) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondents not to resume the plot of the petitioner; and (iii) also for directing the respondents not to charge any non- construction fee, interest or penalty etc. from the petitioner and to issue the completion certificate of the building constructed by the petitioner on his plot allotted by Market Committee, Jagadhari, since he had deposited the entire amount as per the terms & conditions mentioned in the allotment letter (Annexure P-1); or.” Respondents in the reply justified their action and demand of non-construction fee on the ground that the petitioners failed to raise construction for number of years. It is further pleaded that there was no requirement of delivery of physical possession of the plot as the allotment itself was the mode of delivery of possession. It is also pleaded that the petitioner raised the construction without demarcation and sanction from the competent authority and thus the construction raised by the petitioner is illegal. CWP No. 407 of 2010 -5- Similar issue has been considered by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions being CWP No. 1122 of 2003 titled as Raksha Rani Vs. HSAMB and others and other connected matters decided on 6.12.2010. On consideration of the various judgements, relied upon by the authorities including the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another Vs. Amarjeet Singh and others reported as J.T 2009 (4) SC 39 and Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Vs. Shantikunj Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2006 (4) SCC 109 and following observations have been made:- “ (1) All cases of allotment prior to framing of statutory rules dated 10.3.2000 shall be governed by the contract. Under the contract there is no condition or covenant that the liability to pay interest, penal interest shall be dependent upon providing facilities amenities. Such of the allottees who were allotted plots prior to 10.3.2000 are liable to pay interest and penalty, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. (2) Such of the allottees who were allotted plots after 2000 are liable to pay interest and penal interest from the date offer of possession was made. The possession is to be offered from the date of basic facilities, like roads, water supply, electrification are made available. Thus, the liability to pay interest under the statutory provisions becomes payable from the date basic facilities are provided and possession is offered. (3) In so far as the liability to pay extension fee is concerned, at the time of allotment of plots in the year 1988, there was no provision either in the contract or any statutory provision for payment of extension fee. Extension fee for the first time came to be introduced vide policy decision dated 29.4.1998 and thus the extension fee becomes payable only in respect of plots where construction has not been carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of aforementioned policy dated CWP No. 407 of 2010 -6- 29.4.1998.” Issues being similar, these petitions are being disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. Copy of this order be placed on each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 26.5.2011. lucky