C.W.P NO. 10300 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 10300 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 11.05.2009 Arjan Singh ...Petitioners versus PUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Viney Puri , Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the memo dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.30,493/- towards extension fee. Plot No. 229, Part-II, PUDA Colony, Jalandhar was originally allotted by PUDA to one Sudhir Kumar Khurana vide allotment letter dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure P-1). It was stipulated that the allotment shall be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 (in short “the 1995 Act”) and the Rules/Regulations framed thereunder. C.W.P NO. 10300 OF 2007 -2- The original allottee sold the said plot to one Darshan Lal Paul in whose favour re-allotment letter dated 10.03.2005 (Annexure P-2) was issued. The petitioner thereafter purchased the said plot from Darshan Lal Paul and the plot was transferred in his favour vide memo dated 07.06.2006 (Annexure P-3). It was expressly stipulated in Clause 2 of the above said letter that the petitioner will be “bound by the terms and conditions of allotment of the 1995 Act and the Rules framed thereunder”. The Punjab Regional & Town Planning & Development (General) Rules, 1995 (in short “the 1995 Rules”), have been framed under the provision of the afore-mentioned Actf. Rule 13 thereof describes the time within which the building is required to be completed, which reads as follows (relevant extracts only) : “Time within which building is to be completed- (1) The transferee shall complete the building within three years from the date of issue of allotment order or the date of auction, as the case may be, in accordance with these rules. (2) The time limit specified in sub-rule (1) may be extended by the Estate Officer in the manner and on payment of such fee as fixed by the C.W.P NO. 10300 OF 2007 -3- Authority or its committee from time to time, if he is satisfied that the failure to complete the building within the said period was due to a cause beyond the control of transferee”. While the petitioner contends that a period of three years for raising construction as stipulated under Rule 13 (ibid.) shall commence from the date when he purchased the said plot, whereas the respondents have come up with a stand that the period of three years started running from the date when the plot was originally allotted to Sudhir Kumar Khurana on 26.12.2003. According to the respondents, the three years' period expired in December, 2006 and the extension fee has been demanded from the petitioner for a period after December, 2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Rules. There can indeed be no doubt that the period of three years provided under Rule 13 for completion of building shall start operating from the date when the plot is transferred in favour of the original allottee. The expression “transferee” for the purposes shall not include the re-transferer in as much as interpretation, if ignored would render the Rule as another sale transaction of the plot if made within three years would keep on reviving the maximum period for such a construction and it would defeat the very object of the Rule. There is, thus, no legal C.W.P NO. 10300 OF 2007 -4- infirmity in the action of the respondents in demanding the extension fee for the period after December, 2006. Learned counsel for the parties, however, do not dispute that the petitioner has already deposited the extension fee and a Certificate has also been issued in his favour on 24.04.2007. For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. MAY 11, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE