C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 DECIDED ON : 01.05.2009 Kulbir Singh Dhillon and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 16549 OF 1994 Swinderpal Singh and another ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 18018 OF 1995 Varinder Singh Rana and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 8488 OF 1995 Rajesh Sharma and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -2- C.W.P NO. 4189 OF 1996 G. S. Kler and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 4709 OF 1995 Surinder Mohan and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents C.W.P NO. 18684 OF 1995 Ravinder Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. O. P. Sharda, Advocate for Mr. B. S. Walia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G. S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 18684 of 1995 Mr. G. S. Kler, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.4189 of 1996. Mr. T. P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 18018 of 1995 C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -3- Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate and Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4 in CWP Nos. 8488 of 1995, 16549 of 1994 and 18018 of 1995. -.- SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6842 of 1995, 16549 of 1994, 8488 of 1995, 4709 of 1995, 18018 of 1995, 4189 of 1996 and 18684 of 1995, as common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 6842 of 1995. The petitioners are the allottees of residential plots in Urban Estate, Phase.II, Patiala. These plots were allotted to them on different dates by respondents No.3 and 4. The petitioners now seek quashing of the communications Annexures P-3 to P-22, most of these pertain to demand of extension fee from the petitioner by the third respondent. The petitioners' grievance is that since the respondents have not carried out the development works, they are unable to raise construction, therefore, no extension fee is leviable due to non-construction of the sites. It may be noticed here that on July 20, 1995, a Division Bench of this Court stayed recovery from the petitioners till further orders but the said order was vacated by the Bench on November 14, 1995 with a direction that in case the petitioners C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -4- are found entitled to any refund, the same shall be made with 10% interest. The writ petitions pertain to the year 1995. Besides the categoric stand taken in the counter-affidavits filed before admission of these cases, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has come up with a categoric stand that all the development work stood completed and substantial number of allottees have already constructed their houses. It appears that most of the petitioners have also constructed their houses. The question as to whether or not extension fee, interest, penalty etc. as per the agreed terms and conditions are recoverable from an allottee, even if the authorities have failed to provide basic amenities or failed to complete the development works, is no longer res integra. In a recent decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1994 of 2006 decided on March 17, 2009 titled as, “U.T. Chandigarh Administration and another vs. Amarjeet Singh and others”, their lordships have held as follows : “ We asked the learned counsel for the parties to tell us which is the obligation of the lessor in the lease deed which says that they will not charge interest on the installments before providing the amenities. There is neither any condition in the lease nor any obligation under the auction, if the parties have given their bids C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -5- and with their eyes wide open, they have to blame themselves. It cannot be enforced by any mandamus as there is no obligation contained in the lease deed or in the auction-notice”. Therefore, it is evident that a lessee/successful bidder cannot seek rescheduling of the installments of premium or postponement of accrual of the interest payable as per rules. We are not in a position to accept the submission of Shri Bhandare that equity would not demand charging of interest, even though the plots are yet to be fully developed. When parties enter into contract, they are to abide by the terms and conditions of the same, unless the same be inequitable. In the present case, question of equity does not really arise in as much as the condition relating to interest is founded on a statutory rule, vires of which has not been challenged” (emphasis added) If interest could not be denied to the state government even when there was an assurance of all “modern amenities”. It is needless to say that the claim of the government will be much more stronger, when there is no assurance at all, as in this case”. C.W.P NO. 6842 OF 1995 -6- For the reasons afore-stated, a part of the relief sought in these writ petitions has been rendered infructuous, whereas no direction regarding refund of the extension fee deposited by the petitioners, can be issued. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. MAY 01, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE