GURINDER SINGH GURAYA Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 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.