SARVJEET Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for, to quash the communication, dated 22.05.2015 (Annexure P15), vide which Estate Officer, HUDA, Panipat (respondent No.3) has raised a demand for Rs.4,31,16,700/-, on account of extension fee upto 2015. Further, a writ of mandamus is sought to direct the authorities to re-calculate the extension fee, excluding the litigation period i.e. from the date of the order of resumption till the site was restored.

(2.) Facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

(3.) A shop site bearing No.185, Sector 25, Transport Nagar, Panipat, was allotted in favour of M/s Delhi Sonepat Transport Company - a sole proprietor firm of the father of the petitioner i.e. late Sh. Hansraj Chaudhary, vide letter of allotment dated 01.02.1988 (Annexure P1). The total cost of the site was Rs.4,11,732/-. And, the actual physical possession of the site was delivered to the allottee vide possession certificate dated 01.03.1988 (Annexure P2). Clause 16 of the allotment letter required the allottee to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession. For, the allottee failed to furnish the revised price of the site, owing to an enhancement in the compensation awarded to the landowners by the reference court, vide order dated 20.03.2002 (Annexure P5), respondent No.3 resumed the site. The appeal as also the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of resumption were dismissed vide orders dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P6) and 12.11.2009 (Annexure P7), respectively.