Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GURINDER SINGH GURAYA. versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gurinder Singh Guraya. v. Chief Administrator, HUDA & Anr. - CWP-2341-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 280 (23 January 2006)

Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

Date of decision:9.2.2006.

Gurinder Singh Guraya.

...Petitioner.

Versus

Chief Administrator, HUDA and another.

...Respondents.

...

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.

...

Present: Mr.R.S.Randhawa Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Vandana Malhotra Advocate for the respondent.

...

Judgment.

J. S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

Plot No.32, Sector 12, Panchkula was allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as HUDA) to J.R.Dhiya on 30.10.1979. Consequent thereupon, possession of the said plot was offered to the aforesaid allottee on 5.7.1982.

Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

J.R.Dhiya accepted possession of the plot on 27.7.1982.

The instant controversy relates to payment of extension fee.

It is pertinent to mention that construction of a plot purchased from HUDA is to be completed within two years of the offer of possession, and in case construction is not completed by the aforesaid period, extension fee is charged so as to extend time for completing construction. Since the original allottee did not complete construction within two years of the offer of possession, he was liable to pay extension fee. Accordingly, various communications were addressed to the original allottee J.R.Dhiya requiring him to pay extension fee.

J.R.Dhiya decided to sell plot No.32, Sector 12, Panchkula to Parveen Goraya i.e. the mother of the petitioner. Before he was allowed to sell the plot, he was required to deposit extension fee. On his depositing extension fee, he was permitted to sell the plot under reference to Parveen Goraya on 20.12.1988. It is not a matter of dispute that the afore-stated Parveen Goraya transferred the plot in question in the name of the petitioner as a matter of family arrangement on 2.7.1990. Since neither Parveen Goraya nor the petitioner effected any construction over plot No.32, Sector 12, Panchkula, they were required to pay extension fee from time to time. In this behalf, reference has been made to various Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

communications appended to the writ petition including Annexure P-3 (memo dated 25.3.1996),Annexure P-7 (memo dated 30.12.1998) and Annexure P-8 (memo dated 6.9.2001) requiring the petitioner to pay extension fee which was enhanced from time to time on account of delay in effecting construction on the plot in question.

It is the aforesaid action at the hands of the respondents in requiring the petitioner to pay extension fee which is subject-matter of challenge through the instant writ petition. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a First Information Report was registered against the father of the petitioner in 1990 and the plot under reference came under a cloud. It is also the case of the petitioner that there was no such order passed by any Court restraining the petitioner from effecting construction on the plot and that the petitioner had repeatedly visited the office of the respondents requiring them to sanction the site plan submitted by him so as to enable him to effect construction on the plot. It is, therefore, submitted that it was on account of fault of the respondents alone that the petitioner could not effect construction on plot No.32, Sector 12, Panchkula.

The fact that the petitioner ever visited the office of the respondents so as to persuade them to sanction site plan so as to enable Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

him to effect construction on the plot, is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In fact, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner for the first time,deposited scrutiny fee along with site plan on 20.10.1997. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner never made any effort whatsoever prior to October, 1997 in the direction of effecting construction on the plot in question. When the petitioner deposited the scrutiny fee as well as site plan, as referred to above, the petitioner was repeatedly informed that the same could be considered for sanction only if the petitioner deposits the arrears of extension fee as the petitioner had rendered himself ineligible for construction over the plot in question by efflux of time. It is, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner did not deposit the extension fee, the respondents could not scrutinize the site plan submitted by him for sanction.

We find merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. After the expiry of time prescribed for the construction over the plot in question, the petitioner obviously had no right whatsoever to effect construction thereon. Such a right would accrue to the petitioner only after he deposited the prescribed extension fee. It is not disputed that since the purchase of the plot under reference Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

by the mother of the petitioner and thereafter its transfer to the petitioner, no extension fee has been paid by the petitioner. Thus, viewed it is not possible for us to find any fault with the respondents for not sanctioning the site plan submitted by the petitioner.

In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we consider it just and appropriate to allow the petitioner to deposit extension fee determined by the respondents within two months from today, and in case, the aforesaid deposit is made within the time stipulated hereinabove, the respondents shall examine the site plan submitted by the petitioner and sanction it, if it is in consonance with the rules and bye-laws of the Building Regulations, within two weeks thereafter.

Obviously, the petitioner shall have the right to submit revised site plan, in the meantime.

Our instant order will not preclude the petitioner from moving a representation to the respondents seeking reduction in extension fee payable by him, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of his case. If such a representation is made by the petitioner within two weeks from today, a decision shall be taken thereon by the respondents within a further period of four weeks.

Disposed of accordingly.

Civil Writ Petition No.2341 of 2005.

Order Dasti on payment of usual charges.

( J. S. Khehar )

Judge

February 9,2006 ( S. N. Aggarwal )

Jaggi 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.