JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, J.: - The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 11.2.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the demand raised by the appellant-Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for a sum of Rs.10,36,788/- for realisation of extension fee on account of nonconstruction of SCO Site No. 8, Sector 14, Gurgaon, was not sustainable. 2. The possession of the said site was offered to the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 on 11.7.1988 and he was required to raise construction within two years from the date of offer of LPA No. 956 of 2010 2 possession. However, he was arrested on 11.10.1987 in connection with seizure of ‘Heroin’ from one Mrs. Amar Sang at Indira Gandhi International Airport on 22.8.1987. He could be released in April 1991. The offence committed by him was compounded subject to payment of penalty of Rs.14,90,000/-. In order to secure the amount of penalty, the Government of India forfeited the petitionerrespondent’s property including the one in question on 11.3.1993. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 could finally pay the amount of penalty and got the property released in June 2004. Thereafter he approached the appellant-HUDA at Gurgaon for execution of the Conveyance Deed of the site allotted to him when he was confronted with the demand of Rs.10,36,788/- as extension fee on account of non-construction up to 17.1.2005. 3. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by observing that once the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was released in April 1991, there was no valid excuse for nonconstruction of the site. Learned Single Judge has opined that there was adequate time from April 1991 till 31.3.1993 when the plot was forfeited. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge reached the conclusion that no extension fee/non-construction charges were leviable on the expiry of the permissible period in the year 1988 and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 could also not be absolved of the liability after his release in April 1991. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed partially and the impugned order demanding a sum of Rs.10,36,788/- has been set aside with a direction to the appellant-HUDA to re-determine the petitioner’s liability towards extension fee/non-construction charges w.e.f. 1.5.1991 onwards, within a period of two months. LPA No. 956 of 2010 3 4. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed partially and the impugned order demanding a sum of Rs.10,36,788/- has been set aside with a direction to the appellant-HUDA to re-determine the petitioner’s liability towards extension fee/non-construction charges w.e.f. 1.5.1991 onwards, within a period of two months. LPA No. 956 of 2010 3 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and find that there is no justifiable ground to interfere in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was in police custody since 22.8.1987 and offer of possession made to him on 11.7.1988 was illusory. However, the delay in construction after his release from April 1991 is imputable to him. He cannot put forward the excuse that the property in dispute was forfeited by the Union of India, which happened only on 11.3.1993. Accordingly, we hold that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the appeal. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------