SATNAM SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4843, 6058, 6311, 6402, 6403 and 17411 of 1991, the question of law and facts involved therein being common. For purpose of disposal, however, the facts have been taken from CWP 6402 of 1991.

(2.) AN industrial plot bearing No. 50 in Sector 25, Panipat was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated September 28, 1983, Annexure P-1. Clause 7 of the allotment letter provides that the possession of the site will be offered to the allottees on completion of the development works in the area. Clause 18 thereof, stipulates that the allottees will have to complete the construction on the site within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the erection of buildings. This clause further stipulates that this time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer concerned if he is satisfied that the non-construction of the building was due to reason beyond the control of the allottee.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the possession of the plot was offered to the petitioner in February, 1985 and as per the stipulation contained in the allotment letter, he was required to complete construction at the site within two years therefrom. But he did not raise construction within the stipulated time or the time extended by the authorities. The petitioner was, therefore, vide letter dated December 1, 1990. Annexure P-5 issued in terms of the revised policy decision in regard to charging of extension fee in those cases where the construction had not taken place during the stipulated period, asked to pay extension fee of Rest. 15750/- for the year' 1990. within 30 days from the date of the letter, failing which the resumption proceeding of the plot would follow. It is this letter, Annexure P 5 that has been sought to be quashed on the ground that the offer of possession by the Haryana Urban Development Authorities was merely a paper transaction as in fact, till the day the possession of the Act was offered, the development works which included water supply, sewerage facilities, storm water drainage facilities, roads and street lightning had not been completed. The respondents controverted the allegations made in the writ petition by filing a written statement.