JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges demand notice dated 14.3.2003 (P-10), raising demand of Rs. 3,72,625/- on account of dues upto 30.4.2003 in respect of allotment of House No. MIG-162, Dugri Road, Ludhiana in place of House No. HB-77, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, as well as order dated 3.11.2006 (P-18), passed by the Additional Chief Administrator-respondent No. 2, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner for waiving off the penalty/penal interest imposed by the Estate Officer- respondent No. 3. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to hand over possession of dwelling unit No. HB-162, Dugri Road, Ludhiana. 2. Facts of the case may first be noticed. The Punjab Housing Development Board (for short, PHDB), now Punjab Urban Development Authority (for brevity, PUDA) floated a house allotment scheme, namely, MIG-168 Scheme for allotment of houses on Hire-Purchase basis at Ludhiana. The petitioner being successful was allotted Dwelling Unit No. 77 (First Floor), Dugri Road, Ludhiana, vide allotment letter dated 25.9.1991 (P-1). As per clause 2 of the letter of allotment the total tentative price of the dwelling unit was Rs. 1,43,500/-. The petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards earnest money and he was required to pay Rs. 35,455/- before taking possession of the dwelling unit. The remaining amount was to be paid in 156 monthly installments of Rs. 1,505/- each or the entire tentative cost could be paid within a period of 60 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter without payment of interest. As per clause 3 of the allotment letter after deposit of the payable amount with the Divisional Engineer/Asstt. Engineer, Ludhiana, the possession could be taken from him within 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter failing which allotment was liable to be cancelled and the allottee was liable to pay charges and penalty as per the terms and conditions laid down in the Annexure attached with the allotment letter. It is apposite to mention here that the aforementioned allotment was to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 (for brevity the Act) and the rules and regulations framed thereunder from time to time. It is apposite to mention here that the aforementioned allotment was to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Housing Development Board Act, 1972 (for brevity the Act) and the rules and regulations framed thereunder from time to time. The allottee was also required to abide by the provisions of the Punjab Urban Estates (Development and Regulations) Act, 1964 (for brevity the 1964 Act) and the rules and regulations framed thereunder from time to time. 3. On 22.10.1991, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 35,455/- vide Demand Draft No. 499852 (P-2). The possession of Dwelling Unit No. 77 (First Floor), Dugri Road, Ludhiana, complete in all respects including Civil, Public Health and Electrical Fittings was handed over by the Sub Divisional Engineer of the then Punjab Housing Development Board, Ludhiana, to the petitioner on 11.1991 (P- 3). The petitioner has, however, claimed that only symbolic possession of the aforementioned dwelling unit was given and the physical possession could not be handed over because of existence of a police post there. He immediately on the same date i.e. 11.11.1991 apprised the Divisional Engineer, PHDB, Ludhiana, about existence of a police post at House No. 77-FF, Dugri Road, Ludhiana and requested that possession of the same be handed over to him (P- 4). On 10.1.1992, the petitioner again made another representation to the Assistant Manager (Estate), PHDB, Ludhiana, for handing over of vacant physical possession of the aforementioned dwelling unit (P-5). On 30.3.2000/10.4.2000, the petitioner made a request to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, for allotment of alternative dwelling unit because still the police post was in existence in Dwelling Unit No. 77-FF, Dugri Road, Ludhiana (P-6). By that time i.e. upto 10.10.1996 the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 63,440/- with the respondents, as is evident from perusal of Annexure P-24. On 2.6.2003, the petitioner again reiterated his requested for allotment of alternative dwelling unit (P-7). Even thereafter also the petitioner sent letters on 23.6.2000 (P-20), 19.10.2000 (P-21), 29.11.2000 (P-22) and 27.5.2002 (P-23), however, no action was taken. 4. On 3.6.2002 (P-19), the Sub Divisional Engineer (Bill), PUDA, Ludhiana, sent his report to the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 to the following effect : "It is intimated in respect of the above referred subject that plot No. 77 is lying vacant. But there is a police post below this house. 4. On 3.6.2002 (P-19), the Sub Divisional Engineer (Bill), PUDA, Ludhiana, sent his report to the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 to the following effect : "It is intimated in respect of the above referred subject that plot No. 77 is lying vacant. But there is a police post below this house. The passage for going to house No. 77 is through the police post which is inconvenient for a common man. In the same locality House No. 162 MIG is lying vacant. It is recommended that House No. 162 MIG may be allotted in place of House No. 77. By doing so, PUDA will not suffer any kind of loss." On 5.6.2002, the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Ludhiana-respondent No. 2, ordered that House No. 162 MIG, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of Dwelling Unit No. 77 (First Floor), Dugri Road, Ludhiana (P-8). When physical possession of the alternative site was not handed over to the petitioner by the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3, he made yet another representation on 4.7.2002 (P-9). The Estate Officer-respondent No. 3, instead of handing over physical possession of the alternative site, issued a demand notice dated 14.3.2003, asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,72,625 on account dues upto 30.4.2003 so that further action could be taken (P-10). The aforementioned amount includes 121 instalments upto 30.4.2003, difference of price and penal interest, with the following break up, as is evident from letter dated 5.4.2004, written by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 (P-11) :- i) 121 instalments upto 30.4.2003 @ Rs. 1505/- Rs. 1,82,105/- ii) Difference of price Rs. 9,100/- iii) Penal interest Rs. 1,81,420/- As a matter of fact, on receipt of demand notice, the petitioner protested about charging of instalments and penal interest from the date of allotment of original dwelling unit i.e. 77 (First Floor), Dugri Road, Ludhiana. In this context the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 has written a letter dated 5.4.2004, to the Additional Chief Administrator-respondent No. 2, giving aforementioned detail of the dues (P-11). 5. On 19.4.2004, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Chief Administrator, PUDA-respondent No. 1 explaining that since physical possession of the original dwelling unit was not given nor allotment letter of alternative site was issued to him, therefore, he was not liable to pay the remaining instalments. 5. On 19.4.2004, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Chief Administrator, PUDA-respondent No. 1 explaining that since physical possession of the original dwelling unit was not given nor allotment letter of alternative site was issued to him, therefore, he was not liable to pay the remaining instalments. The petitioner also agitated about charging of difference in price and penal interest (P-12). On 18.2.2005, the petitioner was informed that the penalty imposed by the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 cannot be waived off and if he is not satisfied with the penalty imposed he could file an appeal before the Additional Chief Administrator-respondent No. 2 (P-13). On 23.6.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal (P-14). The appeal was rejected by the Additional Chief Administrator-respondent No. 2, vide order dated 14.9.2005 (P-16). 6. Since the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by passing a totally cryptic and non-speaking order dated 14.9.2005, he filed CWP No. 17267 of 2005 in this Court, which was allowed on 11.7.2006. Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a fresh detailed and speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order (P-17). After recording the factual position of the petitioners case in detail, the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA-respondent No. 2 has again dismissed the appeal vide order dated 3.11.2006, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The concluded para of the impugned order is extracted as under :- "By keeping in view the above facts, it is informed that as per the record of Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana, Sh. Ram Kishan has taken physical possession on the spot of House No. MIG 77 First Floor, Dugri Road, Phase 1, Ludhiana from the Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) on 11.11.1991. He requested vide letter dated 27.5.2002 to Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Ludhiana for allotting any other house by keeping in view the difficulties faced by him. After considering his difficulties sympathetically, it was written to Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana vide this office letter No. 2600 dated 5.6.2002 that permission to change House No. 162 MIG in place of House No. 77 is being granted. It was also written to recover the dues from the allottee at his own level. Whenever, any house is allotted in exchange, the terms and conditions cannot be changed, those remain the same. It was also written to recover the dues from the allottee at his own level. Whenever, any house is allotted in exchange, the terms and conditions cannot be changed, those remain the same. As per the report of the Estate Officer received vide letter No. 10233 dated 10.10.2006, the possession of MIG 77 from 11.1991 till date is with the allottee only. Therefore, after reconsidering this case, it is decided that the instalments and interest is recoverable from the allottee Sh. Ram Kishan from the date of allotment of House No. MIG-77 which cannot be waived and the appeal filed by the allottee is being dismissed. This order is passed in compliance of the order dated 11.7.2006 passed by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court." 7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the stand taken is that the petitioner after inspecting the site and after his full satisfaction, has himself furnished an affidavit dated 14.10.1991, accepting the offer on "as is where is basis" (R-1) and only thereafter physical possession of Dwelling Unit No. 77-FF, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, was handed over to the petitioner on 11.11.1991. However, the factual position with regard to existence of police post at the site and allotment of alternative site bearing No. 162, MIG, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, vide order dated 8.6.2002 (P-8) has not been denied. Justifying the impugned order dated 3.11.2006, the respondents have asserted that there is no provision either in the Act or Rules to waive off or exempt the penal amount chargeable on account of default in payment of instalments. It has been claimed that as per Sections 44 and 45 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, the house allotted to the petitioner is liable to be resumed. In para No. 3 of the preliminary objections it has been asserted that the petitioner is a defaulter in making payment of monthly instalments towards the price of the house allotted to him. The respondents have also furnished the detailed calculation whereby as on 31.7.2007 the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,230/- to the respondents. 8. The only question which arises for determination is as to whether the respondents can charge interest and penalty from the petitioner on the whole due amount. The respondents have also furnished the detailed calculation whereby as on 31.7.2007 the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,230/- to the respondents. 8. The only question which arises for determination is as to whether the respondents can charge interest and penalty from the petitioner on the whole due amount. As per the calculation of the due amount given in para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,230/- upto 31.7.2007. For the proper appreciation of controversy, it would be necessary to reproduce the aforementioned calculation, which is as under :- "1. Total instalments due from 10/91 to 9/04 (156 instalments at @ Rs. 1505/- per instalment) - 234780/- 2. 25% of cost -Rs. 35950/-(deposited) 3. Difference in cost of original & alternative flats -Rs. 6585/- 4. Penal interest on Rs. 9100/- upto 31.7.2007 -Rs. 6585/- 5. Penal interest on late instalments upto 31.7.2007 Total 6. Total amount deposited Rs. 63440/- 7. Net amount due upto 31.7.2007 Rs. 450230/- (5136760-63440/-)" 9. The question of charging interest and penalty from the petitioner can be answered only if we are able to record a finding that possession of House No. HB 77(FF), Dugri Road, Ludhiana was not delivered to the petitioner on account of the existence of a police post on the ground floor of the house. In that regard we have summoned the original record. A perusal of the record shows that physical possession of the house was delivered to the allottee on 11.11.1991 at the spot when he informed that police post was in existence at the ground floor. In one such letter written by the Chief Administrator, PUDA, dated 28.4.2004, to the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, Ludhiana, information has been sought with regard to the handing over of physical possession to the allottee on 11.11.1991 by stating that the allottee has intimated the existence of police post on the ground floor. As the fact was disputed a report was sought from the concerned Junior Engineer and also explanation was sought whether the possession was handed over to the allottee and then why on account of non-depositing of dues the allotment was not cancelled. As the fact was disputed a report was sought from the concerned Junior Engineer and also explanation was sought whether the possession was handed over to the allottee and then why on account of non-depositing of dues the allotment was not cancelled. The Estate Officer, PUDA, Ludhiana in his letter dated 5.4.2004 addressed to the Chief Administrator, PUDA has cateorically asserted that physical possession of House No. HB 77(FF) Dugri Road, Ludhiana was handed over to the petitioner, vide order dated 6.11.1991, and its possession at the site was delivered to him on 11.11.1991. Thereafter allottee informed that there was police post in existence at that time and on the basis of his representation the allotment was changed on 5.6.2002 by exchanging House No. HB 162 in place of JB 77(FF). The petitioner was asked to deposit the dues of the new allotted house, which amounted to Rs. 3,72,625/-. It is also pertinent to mention that vide letter dated 26.7.2001, the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab sought information with regard to the delivery of physical possession of House No. 77 FF, which was replied by the Estate Officer, PUDA vide letter dated 6.8.2001, intimating that inspection of House No. 77 was conducted at the site, which is situated on the first floor of the police post. On the spot it was found that there was a lock on the said house which was found to be that of the allottee. The respondents in their written statement have also asserted that possession has been delivered to the petitioner, which is also evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 (P.18). The letter dated 3.6.2002 sent by the Sub Divisional Engineer, PUDA, Ludhiana does not show that possession of the house was not delivered to the petitioner (P.19). The only fact mentioned is that House No. 77(FF) was lying vacant which is quite different than saying that house is not in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, we are not able to reach a conclusion that possession of the house was not delivered to the petitioner and once this factual position is clear then the impugned orders dated 14.3.2003 (P.10) and 3.11.2006 (P.18) are liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons afore-mentioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.