CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: July 23, 2009.
Parties Name
M/S Swastik Cables Pvt. Ltd.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Takhi,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Addl. A.G., Haryana;
Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate, for the respondents-2 & 3.
JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)
Order.
This writ petition has been filed to quash notice dated February
25, 1990, demanding extension fee, for raising construction on an Industrial
plot, from the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 40/- Sq. Mtr. Facts
are not in
dispute. An Industrial plot measuring 5 Acres was allotted to the petitioner
in the year 1980. Possession was delivered on February 25, 1980. As per
terms and conditions of the allotment letter, construction was to be raised
within two years. Petitioner failed to do so and applied for extension of
time to construct the building, which was granted up to March 31, 1986.
Vide letter Annexure P-6, the petitioner made a request for more time to
raise construction, which was rejected. Thereafter resumption proceedings
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -2-
were started. Petitioner failed before the authorities. However, subsequent
thereto matter was settled between the parties and the plot was not resumed.
Vide letter dated May 2, 1990 (P8), a notice was given to the petitioner
under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,
1977, to show cause as to why the plot allotted be not resumed on account
of non-construction. Vide letter dated February 6, 1991 (P-10), to defend
action proposed to be taken, the petitioner was directed to appear before the
competent authority on March 5,1991. In the meantime, in view of request
made by the petitioner, vide letter dated February 25, 1991 (P-9), extension
was granted to the petitioner upto December 31, 1991, subject to conditions
incorporated in the above said letter. At that stage, petitioner came to this
Court and vide order dated April 26, 1991, resumption of the plot in dispute
was stayed.
So far as right of the respondents to claim extension fee for
non-construction is concerned, that cannot be disputed. Dispute remains
only regarding date of completion of construction and amount to be charged
by the respondents, regarding the time taken for completing the construction
at the site. This Court had passed orders on May 6, 2009, May 12, 2009 and
May 26, 2009, directing the respondents to calculate amount of extension
fee as per their policy. Shri Arun Takhi, counsel for the petitioner, has
brought it to the notice of the Court that as per the last communication, an
amount of Rs. 2,19,35,052/- is due from the petitioner. So far as this writ
petition is concerned, this Court is of the view that there was no cause with
the petitioner to lay challenge to document Annexure P-9. Vide that letter,
extension was granted to the petitioner subject to payment of extension fee.
In a way, that order was in favour of the petitioner and was passed in
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5218 OF 1991 -3-
accordance with the policy of the respondent. During pendency of this writ
petition, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had completed
the building in the year 1997. Application for issuance of completion
certificate was also moved. However, on account of pending litigation,
completion certificate was not issued. This Court is of the opinion that both
the parties are not acting in a fair manner.
Taking note of the facts of this case and with a view to settle
equity between the parties, let the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.
1,00,00,000/-, with the respondent, within a period of one month from
today. To this proposal, counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Upon
deposit so being made, the Administrator, HUDA, at Rewari shall verify
the facts, to give a finding regarding date of completion of the building.
For that he can refer to the application earlier made by the petitioner or any
other evidence, as may be produced by the petitioner before him. After
ascertaining the date of completion of the building, the respondents will be
at liberty to claim extension fee as per their policy upto the date when the
building was completed. For the period thereafter, the respondents will be
at liberty to claim interest as per their norms. It is made clear that if amount
so calculated is more than the amount deposited by the petitioner, the
petitioner shall pay the same within two months after passing the order. To
the contrary, if the amount claimed is less than the amount deposited by the
petitioner, excess amount be refunded to the petitioner within one month.
Entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date
of deposit made by the petitioner. This writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
July 23, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge