Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is defendants appeal challenging the view taken by the learned lower Appellate Court. It has been found by the learned lower Appellate Court that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents had constructed his residential premises over Plot No. 855, Urban Estate No. 2, Ambala City, in the year 1985. As per the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Buildings) Regulations, 1979 (to be referred as Regulations) the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents had applied for issuance of Occupation/Completion Certificate on 7.5.1985. A compounding fee of Rs. 13,342/- was assessed by the Junior Engineer of the defendant-appellant on account of building violations as compared to the sanctioned site plan. The order imposing the compounding fee was set aside by the Chief Administrator, HUDA on 14.1.1986 (Ex.PW3/A). However, the plaintiff-respondents still deposited the compounding fee on 5.11.2001 (Ex.PXX). 2. It has also been found that according to Regulation 76 of the Regulations, an allottee is required to file an application before the Estate Officer, HUDA, for grant of a sewerage connection after completion of minimum works as contemplated by Regulation 11 of the Regulations. The Estate Officer is under a legal obligation either to reject such an application or issue a certificate granting permission for connection to sewer. The Regulation has fixed a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the application. If the needful is not done within the specified period of 20 days, then by operation of law certificate is deemed to be granted. The plaintiff-respondents had filed an application and have paid a sum of Rs. 29/- vide receipt No. 2474 dated 4.5.1985 on account of SEW in respect of Plot No. 855-P/2 (Mark-A). The aforementioned amount has not been disputed or shown to have not been paid by the plaintiff-respondents for the purposes of issuance of sewerage connection. The application has never been rejected by the defendant-appellant at any time by alleging any ground whatsoever. However, no steps for recovering charges from the plaintiff-respondents were taken. On 1.9.1989, notices were issued to the plaintiff-respondents. Thereafter, some labourers were sent to the house of the plaintiff-respondents for disconnecting sewerage connection. Against the aforementioned action of the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. However, no steps for recovering charges from the plaintiff-respondents were taken. On 1.9.1989, notices were issued to the plaintiff-respondents. Thereafter, some labourers were sent to the house of the plaintiff-respondents for disconnecting sewerage connection. Against the aforementioned action of the defendant-appellant, the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit. The suit has been dismissed by the trial Court. However, the learned lower Appellate Court has decreed the suit by holding that the action of the defendant-appellant to disconnect the sewerage connection of the plaintiff-respondents is illegal, null and void. It has set aside the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2000 passed by the trial Court. The defendant-appellant has also been directed to compute the dues of the plaintiff-respondents chargeable on account of having sewerage connection since April, 1985 till date without adding any penalty or surcharge. A letter in this regard is required to be notified along with the due amount. The plaintiff-respondents are also required to pay the due amount within a period of 30 days failing which the defendant-appellant has been held entitled to charges interest and penalty in accordance with the Regulations. The defendant-appellant, however has been restrained from disconnecting the sewerage connection of the plaintiff-respondents. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel at considerable length, 1 am of the view that the instant appeal does not deserve to be admitted because the learned lower Appellate Court has recorded categorical finding that an application along with receipt (Mark-A) for the purposes of release of sewerage connection was moved on 4.5.1985. A sum of Rs. 29/- on account of sewerage connection in respect of the plot of the plaintiff-respondents has also been deposited. The aforementioned factual position has not been disputed by the defendant-appellant. Once an application has been moved then according to Regulation 76 of the Regulations the Estate Officer was required to pass an order within . a period of 20 days of the receipt of the application failing which the necessary certificate for sewerage connection is deemed to be issued. The aforementioned factual position has not been disputed by the defendant-appellant. Once an application has been moved then according to Regulation 76 of the Regulations the Estate Officer was required to pass an order within . a period of 20 days of the receipt of the application failing which the necessary certificate for sewerage connection is deemed to be issued. Regulation 76 of the Regulations reads as under: Sanitary installations and drainage to be completed before applying for connection" - No connection to any public sewer shall be made nor any sanitary and drainage installations nor any sanitary and drainage installations intended to be connected through this connection shall be brought into use until a certificate after completion of the minimum works under Regulation 11 has been applied for by the applicant to the Estate Officer and a certificate has been issued by the latter to the effect that the sanitary installations and drainage have been satisfactorily completed in compliance with these rules. If no decision is communicated on the application for a certificate within twenty days of the receipt of the application, the certificate shall be deemed to have been granted. 4. The aforementioned Regulation makes it evident that the application for sewerage connection along with requisite fee may be submitted after completion of minimum works as contemplated under Regulation 11. Once an application has been made to the Estate Officer, then ordinarily a certificate is issued by the Estate Officer to the effect that the sanitary installation/drainage have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the rules. If no decision is communicated to an applicant with regard to issuance of a certificate within a period of 20 days of the receipt of the application, the certificate is deemed to be issued by the operation of law. Nothing has been placed on record by the defendant-appellant showing communication of any decision to the plaintiff-respondents with regard to issuance of certificate for sewerage connection. Therefore, it has been rightly assumed by the learned lower Appellate Court that the certificate by operation of law is deemed to be issued. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned lower Appellate court has also taken care to ensure that the plaintiff-respondents do not enjoy the civic amenity of sewerage connection without paying adequate charges. Certain mandatory directions have been issued as noticed above, which are just and proper. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned lower Appellate court has also taken care to ensure that the plaintiff-respondents do not enjoy the civic amenity of sewerage connection without paying adequate charges. Certain mandatory directions have been issued as noticed above, which are just and proper. I do not find any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The matter has been brought to an end by the learned lower Appellate Court by balancing equities. Therefore, the appeal is wholly without merit. For the reasons, aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.