465 e IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB c HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CWP No407of2010 Date J ParveenKumar Petitioner Versus StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No 19936of2009 Madan Mohan andothers Petitioners Versus m r StateofHaryana and others 3 CWP No 511 of2010 0 Co Om Parkash mPetitioner I Versus C5 State ofHaryana and others Respondents Z 4 4 CWP No 13860of2009 t Z RajKumar son of SadhuRam 8 others wPetitioners 2 Versus r StateofHaryana and others Z 5 CWP No 14506of2009 C Lekh RajSoni 8i another mPetitioners Z Versus r Haryana Agricultural Marketing Board c another 6 CWP No 14547of2009 WaY2 Z Lalit Kumar c others Petitioners Versus Haryana Agricultural MarketingBoard 8 another 7 CWP No 15394of2009 Mls DarshanLal Sanjeev Kumar c others ePetitioners Versus 4weea StateofHaryana and others 8 CWP No19533of2009 Mehtab Singh c others Petitioners Versus StateofHaryana and others Respondents Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 466 CWP No07 of2010 e 9 CWP No 14760of2009 Kashmiri Lal Petitioner Versus StateofHaryana and others 10 CWP No 17252of2009 RichhpalSingh Petitioner Versus StateofHaryana and others Respondents 1 CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI r Presentl Mr SS DinarpurAdvocate for thepetitioner 0 40 Mr RD Sharma DAG Haryana I 0 Mr Amit Sharma Advocate for no2 to 6 I 4 3 PERMOD KOHLIJ ORALI Z All these petitionsinvolve common questions of law based 2 r uponidentical facts Thesepetitions are accordinglybeing of by I this common order C Z Since the issuesare generalin nature factsofeach case are not OO beingdiscussed However resume of the facts is beingnoticed from CWP 3 No 407 of2010 Z Om Market Jagadhari Bhiwani and Pipli issued advertisementsinviting for purchase of plotsin open auctionin New Grain Markets establishedin thesedistricts ee All the petitioners allottedplotsin the open auction 25Io of the bid were was to be deposited at the initial stagewhereasrest of the 75Io sale price was to be deposited within 30 days of the receiptof allotment letter without interest or in halfyearlyinstallmentswith interestc of 75Io per annum from the date of issuance of allotment letter One of the conditions in theallotmentletterrequired the allotteeto complete the 1 Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 467 S CWP No07 of2010 3 1 constructionwithin one yearfrom thedateof allotment It is common case of all the that neitherthe site was readyfor constructionnor was offeredto thepetitioners despite requests no6 vide letter dated193986 askedthepetitioner to deposit thetotal amount within 15daysIt is statedthat thepetitioner the amountof installments with interest and penalinterest I is case of thepetitioners that despitedepositof the amount in some cases the L was not deliveredby the Market Committee and petitioners 0 0 from time to time for deliveryof physical of the I allotted plotsSome ofthe however startedraisingconstructlon C5 I and the construction of shops Petitioner was issued a show Z cause noticedated 2532006 communicatingwhythe plotbe not resumed forraisingconstruction without obtaining and demrCtiOe C Petitioner conveyed that he has raised the constructionin the r year 2007 He was issuedanotherletter dated2272008 to appear before Z the authoritiesforviolation of the conditions no12 and 17 of the allotment m letter In themeantime the respondeloardissuedan advertisementdated V Z 242008 granting extension of 1 V years for raisingconstructionto the tl allotteeswho were allottedplotspriorto 1032000 In responseto the advertisementthe communicatedto the that in view ofthe latestpolicydecision dated2472008 thepetitioner is entitledto raise construction Itis allegedthat on this replybeingfiled the notice issuedto the petitionerwas not and to the contraryanother letter dated 1822009 was issued Rs2751001 as noneconstruction fee for the wef 161987 to 3122008 in the lightof the decision of the boarddated142009 Petitionerprefeued an Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 468 CWP No 407 of2010 4w the demandbut the same was not considered The flled CWP No 8151of 2009titledas ParveenKumar Vs State ofHaryana and others Thispetition was ofwith a directionto the to decide the within a periodof threemonths from the date of receiptof certifiedcopy of the order The of the petitioner has been vide order dated 1682009 and the have accordingly this Court and C sought followingreliefs 0 0 i issue a writ in the nature of Certiorarithereby thenotice dated1822009 Pa10 vide which an I ofRs2751001is beingdemandedfromthe C5 amount asnonconstructionfeefor the period from l61987 to I 3112008 and8lso forsettingasidetheorder dated e 16112009 vide which the Z dated2432009 Pel l9 was dismissed by no3 and Q ii issue a writ 111thenature Of Mandamustherebydirecting the not to resume theplotofthe and I iiil also for directingthe notto chargeany non Z fee interest or penalty etc from thepetitioner and to issuethe certificateofthe building2onstructed m bythepetitioner on hisplotallottedbyMarket Committee since he had the entireamount as per the wa terms 8 conditionsmentionedin theallotmentletter Annexure Z P or Qw in the replyjustified their action and demandof nonconstructionfee on the that the failed to raise constructionfor number of years It is 61rtherpleaded that there was no 4ee ofdeliveryof physical of the plotas the allotment requirement itselfwas the mode of deliveryof It is also pleaded that the raised the constructionwithout demarcationand sanctionfrom the and thus the constructionraised by the petitioner 1S competent illegal Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 469 l CWP No 407 of2010 5 Similar issue hasbeen consideredby this Court in a bunch writpetitionsbeingCWP Noe 1122 of 2003 titled as Raksha Rani Vs HSAMB andothers and other connectedmatters decidedon 6122010 On considerationof the various relied upon by the authorities the of Honble SupremeCourt in case of UT Administration and another Vse AmarjeetSinghand m others as JeT 2009 41 SC 39 and MunicipalCorporation Vs Investments Pvt Ltd reponed as 2006 0 0 scc 109and followingobservationshave beenmade I C tc 1 All cases tojramingofstalutoryrules dated1032000 shall be bythe contract Under the contract thereis no condition or covenant that theliabilityto Z pay interest penal interestshaIlbe uponproviding fadlities amenities Such oftheallotteeswho were allotted Ct plotspriorto 1032000 are liable to pay interestand penalty I in accordance with theterms and conditionsoftheallotment Z letter 629 Suchofthe allotteeswho were allottedplotsafter2000 are 00 liableto pay interest andpenalinterestfrom theda 0Herof n was made The is to be oeredfromthe Z dateofbasicfacilitieslike roads water supply Om availableThus theliabilityto pay interestunder the are made provisions becomes thedate basic facilities are provided is 0Hered 39In sofaras theliabilityto pay is concerned C at the time ofplotsin theyear 1988 there was no either in the contract or any statutoryprovisionfor of extension feeExtensionfeefor therst time came to beintroducedvidepolicydecision dated29A1998 and thus the becomespayableonlyin respectofplots whereconstructionhas not beencarried out in accordance with theterms and conditions dated Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No 407 of2010 0 294998 33 Issuesbeingsimilar these petitions are being of in termsof the aforesaid Copyofthis orderbe placed on eachconnectedfile PERMOD KOHLII 4 JUDGE 26520110 Ct lucky 0 0 I 4C3 4 Z 110 1 leiO 2 I CJ Z OO m2 Z Il Rashmi 2014.04.24 13: 55 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document