IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 13231 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 17.02.2009 Satpal ...Petitioner versus HUDA and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Longia, Advocate and Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2003 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 17 (1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 asking him as to why a penalty of Rs.45,365/- be not imposed on him as he had failed to remit Rs.4,92,980/- in respect of Plot No. 435, Sabzi Mandi, M.T. Cheeka. The above-stated plot was allotted to the petitioner in an open auction held in the year 1980 for a sum of Rs.41,100/-. The petitioner never asked for delivery of possession nor has obviously raised any construction over the plot, as according to him there were some encroachments on the said plot. Earlier he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in the year 2003 (Annexure P – 4) and on the very first C.W.P NO. 13231 OF 2007 -2- opportunity available to them, the respondents took a categoric stand that the area was fully developed but the petitioner was not taking possession of the plot. Suffice it to note that there is nothing on record to support the petitioner's plea that he could not take possession or construct the plot due to any encroachment. In this view of the matter, the demand raised by the respondents towards non-construction charges is fully justified in law and warrants no interference by this Court. It is further pointed out by learned counsel appearing for HUDA that except 25% initial deposit, the petitioner has not paid anything towards the balance installments also. The allotment of the subject plot is governed by the agreed terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 08.07.1980 (Annexure P-1). It is clearly provided in Clause IV read with V thereof that “the installments were liable to be deposited by the petitioner on time along with interest @ 9% per annum. In the event of any failure to deposit the installments by the 10th of each month on which the installments fell due, a penalty upto 10% on the due installments could be charged”. As regards the non-construction charges, since the same are not governed by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter, the respondents are entitled to recover such charges from the petitioner on the basis of their policy decision which is to be applied uniformly qua all the allottees. C.W.P NO. 13231 OF 2007 -3- In other words, while the respondents will be entitled to recover the arrears of due installments from the petitioner along with interest, as provided in Clause IV and V of the allotment letter, the non-construction charges may be levied as per the HUDA's policy. It would obviously necessitate the issuance of fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner as the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2003 appears to have included all the arrears i.e the due installments, as well as, non- construction charges along with penal interest @ 18%, contrary to the rate permissible to be charged in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “HUDA vs., Raj Singh Rana” AIR 2008 SC 3035. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part and while setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 10.03.2003, it is directed that a fresh notice may be issued by the petitioner demanding the entire arrears along with interest, in the light of the observations made herein above and the mandate in Raj Singh Rana's case (supra). In case the petitioner fails to pay the outstanding amounts within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, the respondents shall be at liberty to resume the site. Disposed of. FEBRUARY 17, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE