SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to sanction the building plan submitted by them on 05.12.2007 (Annexure-P-10). A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to refund the amount illegally charged by them from the petitioners alongwith interest.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Shop-cum-flat No. 141, Sector 17, Panchkula was re-allotted to Mrs. Rekha Bhatia, Smt. Ravi Bhatia and Mrs. Vidya Bhatia on 16.12.1988. They have made all due payments. On 08.09.1992, Estate Officer, H.U.D.A.-respondent No. 3, passed an order of resumption on the ground that there has been default in making due payment. Against the order of resumption, an appeal was filed by the petitioners which was dismissed by the Administrator H.U.D.A. vide order dated 28.05.1996. The revision petition filed before the Commissioner, Town and Country Planning Department, was never taken up for hearing or decided.

(3.) THE stand of respondents No. 1 to 3 in their written statement is that the petitioners are under obligation to pay extension fee for non-construction of building over the shop-cum-flat amount to Rs. 3,92,000/-. According to them, the building was required to be completed within two years from the date of offer of possession i.e. 15.06.1988 to 14.06.1990. A reference has been made to the policy dated 02.07.2007 (Annexure-P-11) to argue that no extension was to be granted beyond seven years (2+5 years) after offer of possession in respect of those plots where the period of seven years has either expired or would have expired on 31.12.2007 and who have already availed period of seven years on or before 31.12.2007. The matter was reviewed and maximum period of 13 years beyond the stipulated period of two years has now been provided on payment of prescribed extension fee and the concession given up to 31.12.2007 has also come to an end. The respondents have categorically denied that possession of the shop-cum-flat was handed over to the petitioners on 04.06.1990 without completing the development works. They have referred to Condition No. 6 of the allotment letter dated 15.06.1988 which shows that the development works were completed before the issuance of allotment letter and the present petitioners who are subsequent transferees being the relative, took physical possession on 04.06.1990 and failed to deposit the instalments in time which resulted into resumption of the site on 08.09.1992. The Administrator, H.U.D.A. had dismissed their appeal against the resumption order on 28.05.1996 and no revision petition against the aforesaid order was ever filed. The allegations made in the written statement is that the allottees who have been re-allotted the sites, were instrumental in removing the order of resumption and the appellate order from the file, which had resulted into passing of fresh order of resumption dated 06.05.2002 (23.01.2002?). The respondents have also taken a further stand that pendency of litigation was no bar for getting the building plan approved and construct the building over the site in question. Therefore, the site is liable to be resumed on the ground of non-construction within the stipulated period which expired on 31.12.2007.