(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged show cause notice, dated 12.12.2006 (P-7), under Section 45(3) of the 1995 Act, issued by the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, Patiala-respondent No. 3 in respect of Plot No. 621, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala, raising the demand of extension fee for the period from 27.3.1998 to 31.12.2006 on account of non-construction of building. The petitioner has been directed to show cause within 30 days as to why order of resumption of plot and forfeiture of whole or any part of the money paid be not passed under the provisions of Section 5(4) [45(4)?] of the 1995 Act. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to correctly demand the nonconstruction fee as per the provisions of Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that Plot No. 621, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala, measuring 256.67 square yards, was allotted to the petitioner, vide allotment letter dated 28.3.1995 (P-1). As per clause 9(ii) of the allotment letter the petitioner was required to construct the entire permissible area on the ground floor within a period of three years, first floor within a period of five years, second floor within a period of seven years and rest of the area, if any, within ten years from the date of allotment. Sub-clause (iii) of clause 9 further stipulated payment of extension fee by the allottee in the event of non-construction within the prescribed time limit, as per the schedule given, which reads thus :-
(3.) THE petitioner could not complete the construction over the plot within the stipulated period. Accordingly, a notice dated 30.7.2006 was sent to him raising a demand of Rs. 1,02,775/- on account of non-construction fee up to 31.12.1995. In case of nonpayment, the plot was to be forfeited under the provisions of the 1995 Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 10679 of 2006 in this Court, which was allowed on 18.7.2006. While quashing the demand notice this Court granted liberty to the respondent Estate Officer to raise a fresh demand in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice i.e. by serving a show cause notice at the first instance and considering reply thereof (P-3).