R.S.A No. 3509 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 3509 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 14, 2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority & another, ...... Appellant (s) v. Surinder Kumar Gupta and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit filed by the respondent challenging the resumption order which had been passed since he had not paid the penal interest @ 18% compounded. The main question which has been raised is that of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the HUDA Act. However, even if that question is answered in favour of the appellants yet counsel for the appellants has not been able to refute the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roochira Ceramics v. H.U.D.A and others, AIR 2002 SC 2380, wherein it was held R.S.A No. 3509 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: that the HUDA could charge interest only @ 10%. Even as regards question of jurisdiction, I find that the lower appellate Court has held that mandatory notices were not served upon the respondent. This being so, the bar of jurisdiction under Section 50 of the HUDA Act would not come to the aid of the appellants since it would have to be held that the proceedings have been initiated in violation of the law. Consequently, on both these grounds, this appeal has to be dismissed. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 14, 2010. JUDGE `kk'