JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The dispute relates to plot No. 1523 Sector 21, Panchkula. This plot was initially allotted to Nand Lal Bajaj. He had transferred it in favour of Satish Kumar etc. They in turn had transferred it to Mr. Madan Lal Kaushal on October 8, 1998. Letter of re-allotment was issued in favour of Shri Madan Lal Kaushal. 2. The petitioner wanted to buy this plot. She entered into an agreement for the purchase of plot with Shri Madan Lal Kaushal. On December 27, 1999 Mr. Kaushal applied to the Estate Officer, HUDA for permission to transfer the plot in favour of the petitioner. He also made a deposit of Rs. 23440/- on account of transfer fee. On February 1, 2000 the petitioner deposited Rs. 20782/- as extention fee for permission to construct the house upto December 31, 2000. On February 25, 2000 the Estate Officer, HUDA informed Mr. Shri Madan Lal Kaushal that he is "hereby permitted to transfer the above mentioned plot/house to Pushpalata Jhunjhunwala wife of Sh. Shree Gopal Jhunjhunwala resident of H. No. 534, Sector 16, Panchkula within a period of sixty days.............." Shri Madan Lal Kaushal was further asked to submited certain document like an indemnity bond and affidavit. The petitioner alleges that all the documents were submitted on February 28, 2000. Thereafter the petitioner submits an application for sanction of the building plan. In response to this request, the second respondent sent a communication dated July 14, 2000 by which she was informed that the plot "stands in the name of Shri Madan Lal Kaushal due to which building plan cannot be issued in your name." She was asked to get the plot transferred in her name. This communication was issued in view of the policy decision communicated by the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide memorandum dated March 8, 2000 to the various Administrators/Estate Officers. A copy of this document is on record as Annexure P.4. This communication was issued in view of the policy decision communicated by the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide memorandum dated March 8, 2000 to the various Administrators/Estate Officers. A copy of this document is on record as Annexure P.4. By this order, it has been inter-alia provided that "the transfer of residential/commercial plots wherein either full payment has already been made or laid down schedule of payment of instalments is over, whichever, is earlier, shall be allowed only through execution of conveyance deed/sale deed." Thus, the respondents maintain that a conveyance deed has to be executed in favour of Shri Madan Lal Kaushal before the plot is allowed to be transferred in favour of the petitioner. The implication is that registration charges have first to be paid by Mr. Kaushal and thereafter by the petitioner. 3. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the memorandum dated March 8, 2000, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P.4 shall not apply to the petitioners case. He contends that the permission has already been granted vide letter dated February 25, 2000. A copy of this letter is Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. The documents asked for in this letter have been duly furnished on February 28, 2000. Thus, the revised decision cannot govern the petitioners case. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. 4. We think the stand taken by Mr. D.P. Singh is absolutely fair and correct. Admittedly, all the documents had been furnished on February 28, 2000. Formal permission had already been granted to Shri Madan Lal Kaushal vide letter dated February 25, 2000. Thus, the respondents were bound to transfer the plot in favour of the petitioner. The letter dated March 8, 2000 cannot have retrospective effect so as to prejudicially affect the interest of the petitioner. That being so the action of the respondents in not approving the plan for construction of the building also cannot be sustained. 5. Another fact which deserves notice is that after the issue of letter dated March 8, 2000 another communication was circulated vide memorandum dated March 9, 2000. That being so the action of the respondents in not approving the plan for construction of the building also cannot be sustained. 5. Another fact which deserves notice is that after the issue of letter dated March 8, 2000 another communication was circulated vide memorandum dated March 9, 2000. In this memorandum it was inter alia provided that "in cases where transfer permission has been granted and the process of final transfer has not been completed till 7.3.2000 meaning thereby that final transfer letter has not been issued, in such cases also the transfer permission already granted may be withdrawn and he allottees may be apprised of the new transfer policy........" Mr. Mittal contends that stipulation is wholly illegal. Mr. D.P. Singh very fairly states that no cancellation letter having been issued to the petitioner, the communication is not relevant. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The communication dated July 14, 2000, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6, is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioners application afresh. The needful shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The time spent by the respondent in sanctioning the petitioners plan from the date of the submission of the application to the communication of the approval shall be added to the time already granted to her for completing the building, without payment of any extension fee therefor. We trust and hope that the respondents shall review/examine the pending/decided cases in the light of the above. No costs. Petition allowed.