Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SH.RAGHU NATH GUPTA & ORS versus PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT AUTH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sh.Raghu Nath Gupta & Ors v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Auth - CWP-18753-2002 [2006] RD-P&H 4156 (14 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.18753 of 2002

DATE OF DECISION: July 13, 2006

Sh.Raghu Nath Gupta and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority and others .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri S.S.Behl, Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Shri Rajan Gupta, Advocate for PUDA.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The petitioners have approached this Court for the issuance of directions to the respondents to provide the basic amenities on the sites allotted to the petitioners and also direct the respondents to re-schedule the payment of balance instalments.

To support the aforesaid prayer, the petitioners have pleaded certain facts as well.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, the facts as pleaded by the petitioners have been denied. It has been maintained that the requisite basic amenities have already been provided by PUDA.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the respective pleas raised by them.

At the outset, we may notice that in the case of Sector 6 Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association (Regd.) & Ors v. State of Haryana and another JT 1995 (9) SC 167, the Apex Court has laid down that an allottee who had been offered possession, could not take the shelter of non-providing of all the amenities around the allotted plot. However, it was noticed that no interest etc. could be demanded till the offer of possession was made.

The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court was also considered in the case of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors Etc. v. M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc. JT 2006(3) SC 1.

In M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc. case (supra), relying upon Sector 6 Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association (Regd.) & Ors case (supra), the Apex Court laid down that it was only when facilities like kucha road, drainage, drinking water, sewerage and street lights had not been provided that some defence could be raised by an allottee with regard to non-payment of the interest, penal interest and extension fee but the non-providing of the aforesaid facilities could not be treated to be a pre-condition for payment of consideration by the allottee.

In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, we are satisfied that the allottees can only make a grievance with regard to the non-providing of the aforesaid facilities/amenities, as noticed by the Apex Court, in the aforesaid two quoted judgments.

From the respective stand taken by the parties, it is apparent that there is a serious dispute on facts. Therefore, it would be appropriate if the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA looks into the matter and examines the question as to whether the basic amenities, as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had been provided to the petitioners or not.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive individual representations before the Additional Chief Administrator,PUDA, Mohali within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. In the aforesaid representations, all the relevant facts for consideration for absolving the petitioners from making the payment of interest which has been demanded from them, shall also be pleaded and all the relevant documents shall be attahced. Alongwith the aforesaid representations, the petitioner shall also append the copies of judgments in Sector 6 Bahadurgarh Plot Holders' Association (Regd.) & Ors case (supra) and M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt.

Ltd. Etc. case (supra). The Additional Chief Administrator, Mohali shall consider the claim made by the petitioners and after providing an opportunity of hearing to them, shall pass final detailed and speaking orders within a further period of four months. After the final determination by the Additional Chief Administrator,if a conclusion is drawn that the basic amenities had been provided by PUDA, as laid down by the Apex Court, then the petitioners would be required to deposit all the outstanding dues payable alongwith such other amounts as may be payable by them. In

this regard, after the final determination by the Additional Chief Administrator, written communications through registered covers to the petitioners shall be issued and on receipt of the aforesaid communications, the petitioners would be required to clear all the outstanding dues within a period of two months thereafter. If the petitioners fail to clear the outstanding dues, as demanded, the authorities would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 13,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.