Civil Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2009 Date of decision: February 3, 2011 Smt. Shushila Mann ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.John Kumar, Advocate,for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has claimed refund of excess amount paid and for considering his representation dated 7.12.2007. Plot No.105, Sector 15, Hisar, was originally allotted in the name of Smt. Chander Kala, who had deposited a sum of Rs.3,43,000/-, which included Rs.1,35,746/- as a penal interest on the excess area for the period form 22.2.1994 to 21.11.199. The amount was inclusive of extension fee. The plot was neither allotted in the name of the petitioner nor he deposited any excess amount, but still claims that this amount was deposited under protest. The petitioner in fact is no one to say that amount was deposited under protest. Civil Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2009 -2- It is not understood as to how the petitioner, who is a subsequent purchaser of this plot from Smt. Chander Kala can so claim. The petitioner, thus, has filed this writ petition to claim this penal interest, which was not paid by him. This writ petition is an abuse of process of Court. The clear picture in this regard rather would emerge from the contents of the reply. Apart from the plea of delay and latches in making this prayer in the writ petition, the correct position has been disclosed. The amount in question was deposited on 21.11.1997 by the original allottee Smt. Chander Kala. She never raised any protest while depositing the amount. The petitioner, who is subsequent purchaser, has now filed this petition for refund of penal interest and the extension fee that too after expiry of period of over 10 years. It may also need to notice that Smt. Chander Kala had filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum in the year 1995, which was allowed on 18.3.1998. The respondent-authority had then complied with the order of paying interest and compensation. The original allottee has purchased this plot for Rs.3,43,000/- and in turn, the respondents have been made to pay a sum of Rs.3,42,357/- as an interest compensation because of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. In this background, the prayer made in the writ petition apparently is totally misconceived. The petitioner, who has never paid any penal interest, cannot claim refund thereof. Otherwise it will be strange that the party has been able to get back the entire money and the plot as well. There is no explanation forthcoming for delayed Civil Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2009 -3- approach on the part of the petitioner. The amount was deposited in the year 1997 and the writ petition has been filed in the year 2009 to claim the refund of penal interest. In my view, the petitioner has no right to make the claim for refund of this amount. The petitioner is not well advised to file the present writ petition. This writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs. Dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. To be deposited to the accounts of Legal Services Authority, U.T. Chandigarh. February 3, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE