RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.7.2009.
Dr. Surender Sahai
....Appellant
Versus
Utri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another
...Respondents
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.
Present:- Mr. Anuraag Goyal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Sudhir Parmar, Advocate for
Mr. Narinder Hooda, Advocate
for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
****
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment
and decree dated 31.10.2006 passed by learned First Appellate Court whereby
the defendants/appellants appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.
The plaintiff is challenging memo dated 13.9.2001 claiming a sum
of Rs. 12,325/- from the plaintiff on account of development charges for
providing electric connection in the house of the plaintiff situated in un-
authorised colony. It was the case of the plaintiff that electric connection was
provided in his house in the year 2000 but the plaintiff has been called upon to
deposit a sum of Rs. 12,325/-as development charges subsequently. It was
alleged that such charges are illegal as the colony in which house of plaintiff is
situated is fully developed and the development charges were paid to Municipal
Council Thanesar and it is the Municipal Council Thanesar which is providing all
the facilities like sewerage, roads, drainage and electricity etc and therefore, the
colony in which the house of plaintiff is, is not authorized colony, which may
entitle the defendants to claim charges.
In reply it was pointed out that Municipal Council Thanesar has
submitted report on 11.1.2001 pointing out that Sapra colony in which the house
RSA No.18 of 2007 (O&M) 2
of plaintiff is situated is an un- authorised colony. A circular was issued on
20.4.2000 that electric connection be released to various consumers in the un-
authroised colony on payment of development charges. In terms of sale circular
issued by the Board, the development charges were claimed from the plaintiff.
The electric connection was allowed subject to deposit of development charges
at the rate of Rs. 15/- sq. yard and Rs.25/- per sq. yard for the plot holders
having plot size upto 100 sq. yards and exceeding 100 sq. yards respectively.
Ex.D5 is list of un-authorised colonies in which Sapra colony is mentioned at Sr.
No. 12.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that
town planning scheme was under consideration at the time of grant of electric
connection therefore, the colony cannot be said to be un-authorised in respect of
which the respondent can claim development charges. Having heard learned
counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the said argument. Though the
town planning scheme was pending in respect of Sapra colony but on the date of
grant of electric connection Sapra colony was un-authorised colony and
therefore, in terms of circular Ex. D1 the plaintiff has been rightly found liable to
pay the development charges. There was no sanction by any competent
authority in respect of said colony. Therefore, the house of the plaintiff can be
said to be only in an un authorised colony.
In view thereof, I do not find any illegality and irregularity in the
finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial
question of law in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
24.7.2009 JUDGE
Reema