IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.817 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 9.12.2009 M/s East India Transport Agency -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, rejecting challenge to demand for interest/penal interest but accepting the prayer for delivery of physical possession, subject to the amount, as demanded, being paid. 2. Challenge by the appellant in the writ petition was to demand of interest/penal interest vide letter dated 11.9.2007. According to the appellant, plot was allotted on 13.2.2001. The entire amount was to be paid either within 30 days from the allotment or in instalments. Possession was also to be delivered within 30 days of the allotment. Symbolic possession was given, LPA No.817 of 2009 but the appellant did not take further steps nor paid the entire amount. Accordingly, demand for interest/penal interest was made. 3. Contention raised in the writ petition was that since physical possession was not handed over, demand for interest/penal interest was not called for. This plea was rejected by learned Single Judge, following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Another v. Amarjeet Singh and others 2009(2) LAR 17. However, it was directed that handing over of the possession to the appellant be ensured. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once physical possession was not handed over, there could be no claim for interest/penal interest. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Jeewan Asha Garg AIR 2005 SC 1397 and similar judgments of this Court, wherein it was held that if possession was not offered, demand for interest was not called for. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. In judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellant, there was no offer of possession while in the present case, it has not been disputed that the possession was duly offered within 30 days and 2 LPA No.817 of 2009 the appellant approached this Court only in 2008 that there was encroachment. In these circumstances, the judgments relied upon are distinguishable. 7. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 09, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3