CWP No.403 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.403 of 2009 Date of Decision: 07.10.2010 **** Rajinder Kumar Singla ... Petitioner VS. Chief Administrator & Anr. …Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Ms. RK Thind, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. DK Bhatti, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to deliver the actual physical possession of the allotted plot. He further seeks quashing of the notice dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P8) issued for the recovery of non-construction charges from him. (2). The petitioner’s precise case is that he could not raise construction on the allotted plot No.2170 measuring 300 sq. yards in Sector 32-A, Samrala Road, Ludhiana, due to high tension electric wire passing across the said plot. The said plot was subsequently changed. The respondents CWP No.403 of 2009.doc - 2 – acknowledged this fact and changed the petitioner’s plot from No.2170 to 2227 vide letter dated 24.05.1993 (Annexure P2). The petitioner, however, could not raise construction on this plot also as there was a sewerage line passing through it. It is averred that without shifting the said sewerage line, the respondents have started subjecting the petitioner to non-construction charges/extension fee etc. even when the petitioner is deprived of raising the construction for no fault on his part. (3). In their reply/affidavit filed today, the respondents have averred that :- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx But petitioner has failed to perform all the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter. Now, petitioner has designed a novel story that he will not be able to construct the house over the said plot because of passing sewerage line through his plot. It is submitted that these sewerage line has already been replaced by new sewerage line way back in the year 2003 after the report of DE(PH) of GLADA/PUDA. After replacing the sewerage line, many allottees have constructed their house nearby the plot of the petitioner. Since allotment of plot to the petitioner, he has never approached the respondent for taking possession till date hence this CWP No.403 of 2009.doc - 3 – writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost only on the ground of non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. (Emphasis applied) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (4). The respondents have further averred as follows:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx That in reply to the contents of this para it is mot humbly submitted to the extent that the petitioner has been allotted a plot No.2170 measuring 300 sq. yards at Sector 32-A, Samraula Road, Ludhiana on 23.3.1993 by the respondents. The tentative price of the plot was fixed at Rs.3.60 lakhs, out of which only Rs.84000/- plus Rs.6000/- has been received. It is also submitted that this plot was changed to 2227 vide letter dated 24.5.1993 as high tension electric wire across the plot No.2170 but it is denied that the petitioner has made full and final balance amount to the respondent No.2. (Emphasis applied) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5). It, thus, emerges out that earlier the petitioner could not raise construction on the changed plot (i.e. Plot No.2227) also as the sewerage line was passing CWP No.403 of 2009.doc - 4 – through it which stood replaced by the respondents in the year 2003. The respondents are justified in contending that after the sewerage line was replaced in the year 2003, there was no reason whatsoever for the petitioner for not constructing the plot. In other words, while the respondents are not entitled to charge any non-construction fee upto the year 2003 i.e. till the date of removal of the sewerage line, the petitioner is undoubtedly liable to pay such charges after the year 2003. (6). It may be mentioned here that vide order dated May 14, 2009, the petitioner was directed to deposit the entire arrears of extension fee without prejudice to his legal rights and on deposit thereof, the respondents were directed to deliver the possession to the petitioner. (7). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire arrears of extension fee have been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the said order. There appears to be now no legal embargo against sanctioning of the building plan which are already said to have been submitted by the petitioner. (8). In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- CWP No.403 of 2009.doc - 5 – i. The petitioner shall be liable to pay extension fee/non-construction charges from the year 2003 onwards only. If he has deposited such arrears for the period prior to the year 2003, the respondents are directed to refund the said amount to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; ii. The petitioner shall submit the building plans, if already not submitted within a period of one month and the respondents are directed to consider and sanction the same in accordance with law/Rules/Byelaws/Statute within two months; iii. The petitioner shall thereafter raise the construction within the period as may be stipulated by the respondent-authorities; (9). Disposed of accordingly. (10). Dasti . 07.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE