CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 23, 2009. Parties Name M/S Swastik Cables Pvt. Ltd. ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the respondents-2 & 3. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. This writ petition has been filed to quash notice dated February 25, 1990, demanding extension fee, for raising construction on an Industrial plot, from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 40/- Sq. Mtr. Facts are not in dispute. An Industrial plot measuring 5 Acres was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1980. Possession was delivered on February 25, 1980. As per terms and conditions of the allotment letter, construction was to be raised within two years. Petitioner failed to do so and applied for extension of time to construct the building, which was granted up to March 31, 1986. Vide letter Annexure P-6, the petitioner made a request for more time to raise construction, which was rejected. Thereafter resumption proceedings CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -2- were started. Petitioner failed before the authorities. However, subsequent thereto matter was settled between the parties and the plot was not resumed. Vide letter dated May 2, 1990 (P8), a notice was given to the petitioner under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, to show cause as to why the plot allotted be not resumed on account of non-construction. Vide letter dated February 6, 1991 (P-10), to defend action proposed to be taken, the petitioner was directed to appear before the competent authority on March 5,1991. In the meantime, in view of request made by the petitioner, vide letter dated February 25, 1991 (P-9), extension was granted to the petitioner upto December 31, 1991, subject to conditions incorporated in the above said letter. At that stage, petitioner came to this Court and vide order dated April 26, 1991, resumption of the plot in dispute was stayed. So far as right of the respondents to claim extension fee for non-construction is concerned, that cannot be disputed. Dispute remains only regarding date of completion of construction and amount to be charged by the respondents, regarding the time taken for completing the construction at the site. This Court had passed orders on May 6, 2009, May 12, 2009 and May 26, 2009, directing the respondents to calculate amount of extension fee as per their policy. Shri Arun Takhi, counsel for the petitioner, has brought it to the notice of the Court that as per the last communication, an amount of Rs. 2,19,35,052/- is due from the petitioner. So far as this writ petition is concerned, this Court is of the view that there was no cause with the petitioner to lay challenge to document Annexure P-9. Vide that letter, extension was granted to the petitioner subject to payment of extension fee. In a way, that order was in favour of the petitioner and was passed in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -3- accordance with the policy of the respondent. During pendency of this writ petition, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had completed the building in the year 1997. Application for issuance of completion certificate was also moved. However, on account of pending litigation, completion certificate was not issued. This Court is of the opinion that both the parties are not acting in a fair manner. Taking note of the facts of this case and with a view to settle equity between the parties, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, with the respondent, within a period of one month from today. To this proposal, counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Upon deposit so being made, the Administrator, HUDA, at Rewari shall verify the facts, to give a finding regarding date of completion of the building. For that he can refer to the application earlier made by the petitioner or any other evidence, as may be produced by the petitioner before him. After ascertaining the date of completion of the building, the respondents will be at liberty to claim extension fee as per their policy upto the date when the building was completed. For the period thereafter, the respondents will be at liberty to claim interest as per their norms. It is made clear that if amount so calculated is more than the amount deposited by the petitioner, the petitioner shall pay the same within two months after passing the order. To the contrary, if the amount claimed is less than the amount deposited by the petitioner, excess amount be refunded to the petitioner within one month. Entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of deposit made by the petitioner. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 23, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge