R. S. A No. 2741 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A No. 2741 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.8.2008 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ..... Appellants vs Mukesh Sood and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for the appellants. Rajesh Bindal J. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 583 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. The defendants are in appeal before this court against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court whereby the judgment of the learned trial court was reversed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents in the present appeal filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellants to execute and get registered the conveyance deed in favour of the respondents in respect of Plot No. 29, Sector 27-C, Faridabad. The plot in question was allotted to the respondents vide allotment letter dated 22.10.1973 for a total consideration of Rs. 72,600/-. The respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 1,05,774.50 paise during the period from 13.10.1973 to 8.8.1988 and requested for execution of conveyance-deed and also furnishing information as to whether any amount is still due. The appellants issued letter dated 25.9.1990 informing the respondents that the plot had already been resumed. The respondents filed a civil suit against the resumption of plot which was decreed in their favour on 16.4.1994. The appeal filed by the appellants against the decree dated 16.4.1994 challenging the resumption of the plot in question was withdrawn on 7.9.1994. After the judgment and decree, a number of representations were made by the respondents for getting the sale-deed executed. However, the appellants raised a demand of Rs. 51,195.50 paise on the ground that respondents are in possession of excess area as compared to the area allotted to them. The excess area was determined at 180 sq. yards. The suit was dismissed primarily noticing the fact that the respondents had not been able R. S. A No. 2741 of 2008 2 to show that any amount pertaining to the excess area measuring 180 sq. yards had been deposited by them. In Appeal, the learned court below noticed the fact that the respondents had, in fact, paid a sum of Rs. 12,716/- vide cheque dated 10.2.1995 on account of excess area measuring 180 sq. yards in their possession. The fact was admitted by the appellants in para 11 of the judgment. Even a clerk of HUDA while appearing as DW2 had also admitted this fact. Meaning thereby that the respondents had even deposited the price of the excess area in their possession. It is in this factual matrix that the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and the suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the absence of payment for the additional area in possession of the respondents, the suit could not have been decreed. The principal amount on account of additional area in possession of the respondents comes to Rs. 5,400/- only as against that the respondents deposited a sum of Rs. 12,716/-. Even the claim of the appellants raising dispute about the calculation of the interest @ 18% and that too compounded was also considered by the court below and rejected in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Roochira Ceremics vs HUDA 2001 Haryana Rent Reporter 97, wherein it was opined that the HUDA is entitled to charge only simple interest. Another issue which was sought to be complicated by the appellants before the court below was regarding extension fee before the conveyance deed could be executed in favour of the respondents but it was found that no such demand was ever raised on that account. Once it is established on record that the resumption of the plot on account of alleged non-payment of the allotment price had been set aside by the court below and further the respondents had already deposited the amount on account of additional area in their possession, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the court below in decreeing the suit of the respondents. Accordingly, I do not find any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The same is dismissed. 27.8.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge