Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1702 (PNJ)

Manmohan Singh Kamra v. State Of Punjab

2003-12-20

G.S.SINGHVI, VIRENDER SINGH

body2003
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. The present petition was decided by this Court at an earlier stage on July 2, 2001, and notice (Annexure P8) issued to the petitioner by the Estate Officer, PUDA, demanding payment of Rs. 89,500/- as extension fee on account of non-construction of the building from the period January, 1997 to December 1999 was quashed, being illegal. The respondents were directed to revise the building plan of the petitioner and to give wide publicity to the revised zoning plan so as to enable the other plot holders to apply for sanction of their building plans. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application (No.242 of 2001), seeking clarification of certain aspects of the judgment dated July 2, 2001 passed by this Court. 3. In pursuance to the notice given to the respondents, a reply to the application was filed. 4. Vide a detailed order dated July 26, 2002, the Review Application was allowed. The said order read thus:- "This is an application under Order XVII Rule 1 read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of order dated 2.7.2001 passed in CWP No. 13818 of 1999. Learned counsel for the applicant referred to averments contained in the writ petition and pointed out that even though the Court had formulated a specific question relating to legality of the demand of non-construction fee/extension fee with effect from 1.1.2000 without issuing a zoning plan in conformity with the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Building) Rules, 1996, the same has not been answered. He also submitted that there are several discrepancies in the Courts order which need rectification. Shri Rupinder Khosla, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 agreed that the main question framed by the Court has not been answered and that this may constitute a valid ground for review of order dated 21.7.2001 but submitted that if the Court is inclined to accept the applicants prayer, then all the issues may be left open for fresh consideration. We have carefully perused the record including the order dated 2.7.2001. In our opinion, there is an apparent mistake in the order sought to be reviewed because the main question raised by the petitioner-applicant has not been decided. We also agree with Shri D.S.Kamra that there are other discrepancies in the order which need correction. Hence, the application is allowed. We have carefully perused the record including the order dated 2.7.2001. In our opinion, there is an apparent mistake in the order sought to be reviewed because the main question raised by the petitioner-applicant has not been decided. We also agree with Shri D.S.Kamra that there are other discrepancies in the order which need correction. Hence, the application is allowed. Order dated 2.7.2001 is recalled. The main case now be listed for arguments on 22.8.2002. The respondents shall be entitled to urge all the points available to them for opposing the writ petition." 5. It would be pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the Review Application, another application (Civil Misc. No. 6065 of 2002) was moved, praying therein that respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to accept for scrutiny of the revised building plan to be submitted by the petitioner without insisting on deposit of: 1. Plan scrutiny fee; 2. Enhanced Security Fee; 3. Non-construction/Extension fee; 4. Additional land utilization fee. Admittedly, no reply has been filed to this miscellaneous application. This application was also ordered to be considered alongwith the main case. The matter is thus reopened once again for consideration. 6. A combined study of the pleadings including the review application and its reply thereto reveals as under: The petitioner purchased a plot No. 87, measuring 500 square yards in Phase III, SAS Nagar on 22.11.1996 from one Sh. Manohar Singh, who was the original allottee. The sale deed executed by Sh. Mohinder Singh was duly accepted by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Mohali and the mutation of the plot was also sanctioned in favour for the petitioner vide communication dated 31.1.1997. Mohinder Singh had already paid non-construction fee for the period upto December, 1996 i.e. prior to the registration of the sale-deed in favour the petitioner. After the sanction of mutation, the competent authority of PUDA approved the architectural plan in respect of the petitioners plot, but he could not raise construction because the zoning plan had not been revised in accordance with the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Building) Rules, 1996 (for short the 1996 rules) as under the said Rules, the covered area in the respect of the plots of various sizes in the township of Mohali was enhanced. In respect of one Kanal (500 sq. yards) plot, the permissible sight coverage was enhanced to 7425 sq. feet from 5625 sq. In respect of one Kanal (500 sq. yards) plot, the permissible sight coverage was enhanced to 7425 sq. feet from 5625 sq. feet according to the Erstwhile Building Rules. This enhancement according to the petitioner was about 7.53% and the Front Area Ratio (FAR) was increased to 1.65%. However, no zoning plan was revised in consonance with the new Building Rules and for this reason, the petitioner could not construct his building. The petitioner could not construct his building. The petitioner after having waited for sometime for issue of the revised zoning plan took up the matter with respondents No. 2 and 3 for amendment of the zoning plan in consonance with the 1996 Rules. He also submitted a representation to respondent No.3 in February 1997, but no action was taken in the matter. The petitioner also served a legal notice upon the respondents, specifically pointing out that he would not be made liable to pay any further non-construction fee till such time the zoning plan is declared and a reasonable time is given to him to raise construction over his plot. The petitioner consequently received a reply in October, 1997 to the effect that the matter was under consideration. The grouse of the petitioner is that he then, all of a sudden, received a demand notice (Annexure P8) from respondent No. 5 for depositing a sum of Rs. 89,500/- on account of non-construction fee for the period 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1999. The petitioner, after receipt of the said notice, met the concerned officers of PUDA, who told him that w.e.f. January, 2000, the non-construction fee would be raised to Rs. one lac per annum (approximately) in respect to one Kanal plot and no further extension would be granted. The petitioner, thus, challenged the said demand notice (Annexure P8) on the ground that it is ultra-vires to the Punjab Regional and Town Planning Development Act, 1995 (for short the Act) and the 1996 Rules and that respondent No. 2 and its functionaries are bound to make the corresponding changes in the zoning plans so as to enable him and the other plot holders to get the building plans sanctioned as per the amended zoning plans. The other relief sought for by the petitioner is that no demand on account of non-construction/extension fee for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 can be made as the entire delay is solely attributable to PUDA. The other relief sought for by the petitioner is that no demand on account of non-construction/extension fee for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 can be made as the entire delay is solely attributable to PUDA. The consequent relief being sought by the petitioner in person and in rem is that the extension fee which already stands deposited by him and the other similarly situated house builders upto 31.12.1996 is liable to be carried forward and that PUDA be directed to permit the construction upon unconstructed plots by adjusting fee extension fee already deposited upto December, 1996. Besides, this, some reasonable time i.e. a minimum of 1-1/2 years should also be given to all prospective house builders within the township of Mohali to raise constructions on their respective plots without levying any fee or in the alternative if the construction is already carried out, the extension fee already charged upto 1999 be refunded with interest to the individual plot owner. The petitioner also prays that respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to accept the scrutiny of the revised building plan to be submitted in due course without insisting on deposit of plan scrutiny fee, enhanced scrutiny fee. The petitioner is also seeking the relief in respect to length and width of the cantilevers (Chhajjas) under the old Rules vis-a-vis the new Rules, The petitioner is further seeking availment of 100% basement in accordance with the 1996 Rules. He, thus, prays that a general direction be given to PUDA to supply the zoning plans on payment to every plot owner and that the petitioner and the other plot owners, who fall in the same category should be compensated for the delay in construction. 7. He, thus, prays that a general direction be given to PUDA to supply the zoning plans on payment to every plot owner and that the petitioner and the other plot owners, who fall in the same category should be compensated for the delay in construction. 7. Controverting the averments made by the petitioner, the stand taken by respondents No. 2 and 3 in the written statement filed to the main petition as also in reply to the Review Petition is that the plot in question was allotted to Manohar Singh in 1971; he, instead of raising construction, had paid the extension fee; the petitioner had purchased the plot from Manohar Singh in 1996 and even after getting the building plan sanctioned, he did not raise any construction inspite of the fact that it was to be completed within three years from the date of allotment as per the condition of the allotment letter, but the said plot continued to be vacant for more than 26 years of allotment when it was purchased and transferred in the name of the petitioner; the petitioner was free to get the building plan approved as per the already approved zoning plan for phase III-A, however, no such attempt was made by him; the petitioner after purchasing the plot from Manohar Singh had furnished separate affidavits dated 7.10.1996 and 31.1.1997, wherein he undertook to abide by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder as amended from time to time and the conditions of allotment. It was further undertaken by the petitioner that he would pay all the dues, if any, including the additional price in respect of the said plot as and when demanded by the Estate Officer irrespective of the execution of conveyance/sale-deed and in case of failure on his part, the plot could be resumed; he also undertook to construct the building on the plot within the stipulated period in accordance with the sanctioned building plans. The petitioner, according to the respondents, is thus estopped in law from challenging the provisions of the 1996 rules and regulations besides any imposition of extension fee. The petitioner, according to the respondents, is thus estopped in law from challenging the provisions of the 1996 rules and regulations besides any imposition of extension fee. The case of the respondents further is that the amendments made in the 1996 Rules were notified on 24.12.1998 and the amended zoning plan was available to the petitioner at the time of filing of the present writ petition, but he did not get his plan sanctioned as per that and instead knocked the doors of the Court without any tangible cause whereas the majority of the plot holders have already raised the constructions after obtaining sanction from the competent authority and that the extension fee has already been deposited by them as per the existing zoning plans. It is further averred that the zoning plan, in any case, came into effect on 20.12.1998 when it was approved by the Chief Administrative PUDA, who is competent authority to approve the same and as this fact was in the notice of the petitioner, there can not be any ground for restraining PUDA from levying, extension-fee w.e.f. January, 2000 and similarly, there can not be any justification to impose time limit moratorium for the construction of the house or any remission of plan scrutiny fee/enhanced security fee etc. It is further asserted by the respondents that the adjudication on the point of raising of Chhajjas would be a very hypertechnical question, which should be left to the Engineers and the Architects. It has then been pleaded that the 1996 rules do not provide for any publication of the zoning plan because it is a document, which is referred to by the practising architects for preparing building zoning plans for the purpose of construction, who are engaged for this purpose by the house builders. 8. At the cost of repetition, we may say once again that the petitioner, in nut-shell, is seeking the following reliefs; 1. Quashing of Demand notice (Annexure P8) for extension fee from January, 1997 to December, 1999 on account of non-construction of the building and PUDA be restrained from charging the extension fee from other plot builders, similarly situated. 2. Prohibition from charging construction/extension fee w.e.f. January, 2000 onwards till formulation and publication of zoning plan in consonance with new rules, 3. Quashing of zoning plan dated 20.12.1998. 4. 2. Prohibition from charging construction/extension fee w.e.f. January, 2000 onwards till formulation and publication of zoning plan in consonance with new rules, 3. Quashing of zoning plan dated 20.12.1998. 4. Moratorium period of 1 and 1/2 years to raise construction by defraying the amount of extension fee already paid upto December, 1996. 5. Right to construct 7425 square feet in terms of the 1996 Rules rather than 5625 square feet in terms of 1998 amended rules. 6. No additional land utilization fee is chargeable, 7. Waiver of plan scrutiny fee at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per sq. feet from neighbouring plot, if already constructed. 9. Seeks combination of cantilevers. 10. Direction to PUDA to supply zonal plan on demand to plot owners, 11. Right to be compensated for delay in construction and consequent escalation in construction costs. 9. We have heard Mr. D.S.Kamra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rupln der Khosla, learned counsel for the respondents. With their assistance, we have gone through the entire record once again. 10. Mr. Kamra contends that so far quashing of Annexure P8, the demand notice for extension fee from January, 1997 to December, 1997 is concerned, it already stands quashed by this Court, on account of absence of Zoning Plan in consonance with new Building Rules giving detailed reasons. 11. Regarding charging of extension fee w.e.f. January, 2000 onwards, the learned counsel submits that till date, no zoning plan is framed in consonance with the 1996 Rules and as such, the same being moratorium, no extension fee can be taken by the respondents as this delay is attributable to PUDA. Stretching it further, he contents that even now the zoning plan dated 20,12.1998 is ultra vires as it was framed in violation of the then existing Building Rules of 1996; that the rules were amended subsequently on 24,12,1998 without retrospective effect and the process of illegal curtailment, however, started months earlier to the zoning plan coming in existence; that the zoning plan is of dated 8.10.1998 i.e. much prior to 1998 amended Rules; the zoning plan was framed but it illegally curtailed 1800 square feet in violation of the then existing rules, which were later amended without retrospective effect; that the zoning plan is subordinate to the rules and not vice-versa and as such, is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel then contends that no additional land utilization fee can be charged from the petitioner as utilization fee at the rate of Rs. 36/- per square foot for covering area in excess of 4,500/- square feet as permissible under the old rules was levied for the first time vide amended rules w.e.f. 24.12.1998 and the petitioner had a right to raise additional construction from 1996 to 1998 without such levy. At the same time, the PUDA can not charge the plan scrutiny fee at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per square foot and also enhance the scrutiny fee w.e.f. 1.4.2000, as the petitioner could not construct his house since 1996, should be put back into the same position when there was no plan scrutiny fee and even the security was only Rs. 500/- and not Rs. 5,000/- as enhanced now. Learned counsel then contends that since the petitioner has a corner plot and there is 8 fee clearance from all the sides, he has a right to construct 10 3% basement as it is permissible under the 1996 and even under the 1998 Amended Rules, the right is conceded by PUDA. 12. The learned counsel then seeks a combination of cantilevers on the ground that under the old rules, the cantilevers were to have a projection not exceeding four feet and could cover the entire width or front and rear of the building. According to the new rules, the cantilevers have been reduced to mere canopies/awning. In this context, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 18 of the Building Rules of 1996 and submits that a conjoint perusal of Sub-rules (1) and (3) of the Rule 18 discloses that Chhajjas may project upto two meters (6.5 feet) but such projection shall not exceed 1/4th area of the site. Since one kanal plots generally have a width of 50 feet, the chajja or cantilever having a projection of 6.5 feet would be not more then 12.5 feet in width. Since one kanal plots generally have a width of 50 feet, the chajja or cantilever having a projection of 6.5 feet would be not more then 12.5 feet in width. Under the old rules, such cantilevers were to have a projection not exceeding four feet and could cover the entire width of front and rear of the building, but according to new rules, the cantilevers have been reduced to mere canopies/awnings, The learned counsel submits that since no specific reply has been filed by the PUDA with regard to projections in front and rear and the situation even now is totally confused one and four feet Chhajja are being passed since June, 1996 even uptil today in the building plans. The learned counsel then contends that a moratorium period of at least 1-1/2 years should be granted to raise construction without levying any extra fee. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel submits that a direction should be issued to the PUDA to supply the zoning plan on demand as to enable the plot owner to submit his individual plan for the purpose of raising construction in accordance with the same for which a requisite fee can be demanded from them. 13. The learned counsel then contends with some vehemence that the petitioner reserves his right to be compensated for the delay in construction and consequent escalation in construction costs by way of relegating to the civil/consumer court, 14. Refuting the arguments advanced by Mr. Kamra, Mr. Khosla, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is estopped in law from challenging the provisions of the Rules and Regulations besides the imposition of extension fee or the other charges because the plan was already passed for the purposes of construction when the plot was purchased by the petitioner in January, 1997 in so much so that the extension fee for the relevant period was already paid and that the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Court only after receiving notice to make the payment of non-construction/extension fee in the year 1999. Mr. Khosla then contends that the petitioner had even tendered separate affidavits after buying the plot in question from Dr. Mr. Khosla then contends that the petitioner had even tendered separate affidavits after buying the plot in question from Dr. Manohar Singh undertaking to abide by the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estate (Development and Regulation) Act, 1964/Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 and the Act 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder as amended from time to time as also the conditions of the allotment; the petitioner has also agreed to pay all the dues, if any, including the additional price in respect of the said plot on demand by the Estate Officer irrespective of the execution of conveyance deed/sale-deed; that the petitioner has even gone to the extent of agreeing that in case of failure of payment of any amount/additional price and extension fee, the plot can be resumed. Mr. Khosla, in this context, has drawn our attention to the written statement and submits that the petitioner thus has no case. 15. So far as right to construct 100% basement subject to leaving 8 feet from neighbouring plot is concerned, Mr. Khosla has conceded at the bar that the petitioner is entitled to the said relief. 16. Mr. Khosla further contends that although no specific reply has been filed by the respondents to rebut the submissions made in Civil Miscellaneous No. 6065 of 2002, yet the respondents have all the rights to charge the plan scrutiny fee, security fee, non-construction/extension fee and the additional land utilization fee from the petitioner at the time of accepting the revised building plan for the purpose of revised zoning plan which came into force on 20.12.1998 and he became aware of this fact in due course if not immediately after its approval. At the same time, no moratorium can be imposed for any period of time on the levy of further extension fee to allow the petitioner or any other owner to construct his house, 17. So far as approval of revised zoning plan is concerned, Mr. Khosla contended that no irregularity has been committed in approving the same because the applicability of the 1996 Rules on the existing residential plots was discussed at various levels a number of times and ultimately the same were modified and notified on 24.12.1998. However, zoning plans for all the plots in old sectors were available arid building plans continued to be sanctioned as per these zoning plans prepared under the Rules of 1972. However, zoning plans for all the plots in old sectors were available arid building plans continued to be sanctioned as per these zoning plans prepared under the Rules of 1972. The petitioner never approached PUDA to get the building plans sanctioned even for partial completion of the house and as such,, at this stage he cannot be held entitled to the reliefs sought. The learned counsel has placed before us photostat copy of the noting of different dates in respect of approval of the revised zoning plan for different categories of plots in existing sectors of SAS Nagar (Mohali) and the same has been taken on record without any objection from the other side. 18. Meeting the last limb of argument, Mr. Khosla contends that the zoning plan cannot be supplied to the plot owners as it is available only to practising architects in the office of the Chief Town Planner, District Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Mohali and with the District Town Planner (PUDA); the zoning plans are used by the practising architects and not by the owners; the owners have to engage architects to prepare building plans for their houses; the zoning plans are also not published and even the rules do not provide for publication thereof. The petitioner, at the same time, has no right to be compensated for any delay in construction of his house or on account of consequent escalation in the construction costs in any civil/consumer Court as the respondents cannot be blamed for any such delay whatsoever. 19. Admittedly, the position now is that the competent authority had already sanctioned a building plan on 6.8.1996 submitted by Shri Manohar Singh from whom the present petitioner had brought this plot. The said plan was according to the Rules of 1972. The present petitioner had not submitted any building plan till date. He brought the plot from Shri Manmohan Singh in November, 1996. The 1996 Rules came into force w.e.f. 27th June, 1996.CertainIy by virtue of these Rules, the constructed area was substantially enhanced in respect of plots of various sizes within the township of Mohali, but the zoning plan in consonance with the building Rules was not suitably revised. He brought the plot from Shri Manmohan Singh in November, 1996. The 1996 Rules came into force w.e.f. 27th June, 1996.CertainIy by virtue of these Rules, the constructed area was substantially enhanced in respect of plots of various sizes within the township of Mohali, but the zoning plan in consonance with the building Rules was not suitably revised. The grouse of the petitioner is that he could not submit his building plan for sanction after he bought it from Shri Manohar Singh and had been waiting for the approval of the zoning plan so as to avail for the advantage of the increased site coverage. The other grouse now shown is that even the new zoning plan which is based on the amendments made in the 1996 Rules notified on 24.12.1998 is also liable to be nullified on the ground that it was approved by the Chief Administrator, PUDA on 20.12.1998, whereas the 1996 Rules were amended on 24.12.1998 and as such, technically there is no zoning plan even till date. For this reason, his revised building plan to be submitted should be sanctioned on the basis of the 1996 rules and not according to the 1998 amended Building Rules. 20. For reference, the effect of covered area, floor area ration (FAR) and the ground coverage is reproduced as under by way of comparative table:- Under 74 Under 96 Under 98 Rules Rules Rules Covered Area 4500 7425 5625 Floor Area Ratio 1:1 1:1.65 1:1.25 Ground Coverage 2250 2653.5 2589 (50%) (58.96%) (57.53%) The above said comparative table shows that the covered area has been curtailed from 7425 sq.feet to 5625 sq.feet i.e. by 1800 sq.feet. The amended rules like wise also effect the floor area ratio and the ground coverage. 21 The stand taken by the respondents is that although the 1996 Rules came into operation w.e.f. 27.6.1996, yet their applicability pertaining to site coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was under review as in some sectors the majority of the constructions had already been raised. From the reply filed by the respondents, the substantial and material difference in earlier Rules of 1972 and the 1996 Rules can be summarised as under;- (i) Site Coverage Sr. Category of Site coverage Site coverage Increase in site No. Plot No. Plot as per 1974 as per PUDA coverage Rules Rules 1996 1. 250 Sq. yds (10-M) 1350 sq.ft. 1462,5 sq.ft. Category of Site coverage Site coverage Increase in site No. Plot No. Plot as per 1974 as per PUDA coverage Rules Rules 1996 1. 250 Sq. yds (10-M) 1350 sq.ft. 1462,5 sq.ft. 112.5 sq. ft. 2. 300 sq. yds (12-M) 1530 sq.ft. 1753.50 sq.ft. 223.50 sq. ft. 3. 500 sq, yds (1-K) 2250 sq.ft. 2653.50 sq.ft. 403.50 sq. ft.(ii) Total Covered Area The total covered area on the above plots was also increased substantially as indicated below:- Sr. Category Old Rules 1974 New Rules 1996 Increase No. of Plot FAR Total FAR Total Covd. area Covd. area 1. 250 sq. yds, 1.50 3375 sft. 1.65 3712.5 sft. 337.5 sft. (10%) 2. 300 sq. yds, 1.00 2700 sft. 1.65 4495 sft. 1755 sft. (65%) , 3. 500 sq, yds, 1.00 4500 sft. 1.65 7425 sft. 2925 sft. (65%) The increase was much higher on higher categories of plots. 22 The case of the respondents then is that since increase in covered area at the ground level and at floor was substantial in higher category of plots above 10 marlas, the same could not be accommodated within the given zoning area of plots and as such, it was felt that the increase which was too higher (65% in 1-Kanal plots) have serious implications and put enormous pressure on existing services, roads, water supply, sewerage etc. on account of higher population due to increase in the covered areas and for this reason the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, who had earlier prepared and approved zonning plans of Urban Estates of the Punjab was requested to exempt the applicability of the 1996 rules and keeping in view the Townscape and skyline of city on one hand and the 1996 Rules and the public demands on the other hand, efforts were made to evolve amended proposals of zoning for all categories of residential plots and proposals of the Chief Town Planner, Punjab were discussed at the level of Planning and Design Committee meetings held from time to time and ultimately the 1996 Rules prepared under the Act were amended accordingly. The Committee decided to scale down the coverage and total covered area for higher categories of plots so as to bring it in tune with the prevailing rules followed in Chandigarh and Panchkula, Accordingly, Rules 15 and 16 of the 1996 Rules were sent to the government and the same were modified vide notification dated 24.12.1998. The Committee decided to scale down the coverage and total covered area for higher categories of plots so as to bring it in tune with the prevailing rules followed in Chandigarh and Panchkula, Accordingly, Rules 15 and 16 of the 1996 Rules were sent to the government and the same were modified vide notification dated 24.12.1998. 23. According to the modified rules, the site coverage and FAR for residential plots is as under:- Sr. No. Area of site Permissible Site Coverage (i) For the first 210 square metres 65% (ii) For the next 210 square metres 50% (iii) For the remaining area 40%16i) Floor Area Ratio - The maximum floor area ratio shall not exceed:- (c) In case of residential plot (i) For plots upto 225 sq. mtr. in area 1.65 (ii) For plots above 225 sq. mtr. 1.40 but not exceeding 325 sq. mtr. (iii) For plot above 325 sq. mtr. 1.25 but not exceeding 430 sq. mtr. From the relevant record and notings, we find that the modalities for the applicability of new rules were finalised at the level of Planning and Design Committee meeting on 29.7.1998 and it was also decided to levy charges on the old allottees who were availing the benefit of additional covered area. Thereafter, the revised zoning plan for residential plots in the existing sectors was prepared by the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 8.10.1998. The revised zoning plans were discussed at the level of Chief Administrator, PUDA on 18.11.1998 and final plan was received from the Chief Town Planner, Punjab on 10.12.1998. Since, the Chief Administrator, PUDA was declared the competent authority to approve the zoning plan of sector/sub-sectors level, the amending zoning plan was approved by the Chief Administrator on 20.12.1998 and the 1996 Rules were amended. 24 As a sequel to the above stated facts, it cannot be said that there is any irregularly committed by the respondents on the basis of which the new zoning plan can be declared ultra vires. At the same time, it cannot be said that till date there is no approved zoning plan. We, thus, hold that the amendment made in the 1996 Rules on 24.12.1998 is legally sustainable for all intents and purposes and the plot owners would get their building plans sanctioned according to the new zoning plan effective from 20.12.1998. At the same time, it cannot be said that till date there is no approved zoning plan. We, thus, hold that the amendment made in the 1996 Rules on 24.12.1998 is legally sustainable for all intents and purposes and the plot owners would get their building plans sanctioned according to the new zoning plan effective from 20.12.1998. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is thus, repelled. 25. Now the other relevant questions which crop up for our consideration are thus:- (i) Whether PUDA is justified in sending demand notice Annexure P8 to the petitioner for the recovery of extension/non-construction fee for 1997-98 to the extent of Rs. 89,500/-? (ii) Whether PUDA can demand non-construction/extension fee w.e.f. 1.1.2000 without preparing a zoning plan so as to bring it in conformity with the provisions of the 1996 Rules? (iii) Whether PUDA at the same time can ask for plan scrutiny fee, security fee or additional land utilization fee from the petitioner? (iv) Whether the petitioner can raise the construction on his plot after getting the site plan approved as per the 1996 Rules, prevailing prior to the amendment made in December, 1998? 26. After a careful survey of the factual matrix and the attendant circumstances, it surges on the surface that the zoning scheme under the Act is the sine-qua-non and for all purposes, the key to the solution of the controversy. It cannot be gain said that the respondents in this behalf do not deny the factum of such a zoning plan. However, the disagreement is regarding the time consumed by the authorities. 27. Admittedly, the position in the instant case is that the building plan already submitted by Shri Manohar Singh from whom the petitioner had bought the present plot was approved by PUDA. When the petitioner bought the plot, the 1996 Rules had come into existence, according to which many relaxations were granted to the plot owners of different categories. Certainly, the petitioner was well within his right to take the advantage of the 1996 Rules. When the petitioner bought the plot, the 1996 Rules had come into existence, according to which many relaxations were granted to the plot owners of different categories. Certainly, the petitioner was well within his right to take the advantage of the 1996 Rules. Since there was no zoning plan approved in consonance with the said Rules, the petitioner could not submit his building plan for the purposes of construction and instead started hammering at PUDA by different representations to come out with the zoning plan but to no effect and ultimately in the month of December, 1998, the 1996 Rules were once again amended and the zoning plan was approved. In our view, this delay is attributable only to PUDA authorities who took two long years to come up with a new zoning plan. The petitioner cannot be blamed for that. The petitioner, in our view, had acquired a right to apply for sanction of the revised building plan and raise construction but he could not do so as PUDA had not published the revised zoning plan at that stage. In our considered view, the petitioner, at the same, time was also justified in not raising the construction on the basis of the previous site plan sanctioned by the competent authority on 6.8.1996 in the face of the 1996 rules. The scheme cannot be kept in lockers. Otherwise, the position would be rather strange and unusual. It will result into negation or principles of natural justice and violence of rules of fair-play. Simply that the petitioner had tendered certain required affidavits after buying the plot would not be a ground to deprive him or his vested right. He has successfully supported his contentions that he was led into the dark and that the penalty imposed on him vide Annexure P-8 is hit at the very base. This aspect was taken into consideration even earlier and the demand notice was nullified. We respectfully subscribe to the view that the principal relief to the petitioner has already been granted but following the same track of reasoning and keeping in view that the petitioner has been waiting for the outcome of the present litigation, the authorities cannot claim at least the extension fee/non-construction fee for the subsequent years upto date. We hold accordingly. We respectfully subscribe to the view that the principal relief to the petitioner has already been granted but following the same track of reasoning and keeping in view that the petitioner has been waiting for the outcome of the present litigation, the authorities cannot claim at least the extension fee/non-construction fee for the subsequent years upto date. We hold accordingly. We may, however, maker it very clear that this relief will be available to the petitioner only if he submits his building plan within three months from today. We may also put it in so may words that the building-plan shall now be approved according to 1998 amended Building Rules prevailing as of today. 28. So far as other charges/fees are concerned, we are of the view the petitioner is not justified in getting them waived off. We have already held that the new zoning plan approved on 20.12.1998 is not ultra vires. As such, there cannot be any good ground whatsoever for restraining PUDA from levying plan scrutiny fee, security fee in excess of Rs. 500/- or any additional land utilization fee to be charged by PUDA in due course. We are of the view that the claim of the present petitioner on the above said count is absolutely unjustified. 29. So far as width and length of cantilevers (Chhajjas) under the rights viz-a-viz the new Building Rules are concerned, we restrain ourselves to adjudicate upon this hypertechnical question. These are the matters which are left to the Engineers and the architects who are qualified and experienced persons in this regard. We would not like to interfere on this issue at all. 30. As to the ancillary reliefs urged by the petitioner, the same are not germane and cannot be legally allowed. We are of the opinion that a review petition is quite often mistakenly treated to be of wider ambit. But in fact it is not meant to enable a party to draw a red herring across the trial and make claims of sorts. 31. At the same time, this writ, in our view, is exclusively personal to the petitioner. It is quite meet and proper to say in this connection that no other plot holders have joined the petitioner. They have also not agitated the matter on their own. The reasons for the same cannot be fathomed out herein. 31. At the same time, this writ, in our view, is exclusively personal to the petitioner. It is quite meet and proper to say in this connection that no other plot holders have joined the petitioner. They have also not agitated the matter on their own. The reasons for the same cannot be fathomed out herein. The Courts cannot enter into the minds of others. The scope of personal relief cannot be converted to that or relief in rem. 32. The be-all and. end-all of the above discussion is that the petitioner herein succeeds to the extent indicated above. In other words the notice Annexure P8 stands nullified. The building plan should now be submitted by the petitioner within the aforesaid fixed period and the same shall be approved by the authorities according to the prevailing buildings rules as of today without charging any extension/non-construction fee from him. This writ petition and the C.M. are disposed of accordingly.