JUDGMENT : Jasbir Singh, J. CM No.17629 of 2012 CM is allowed, as prayed for. CM No.17630 of 2012 CM is allowed. True copy of order dated 18.10.2012 is taken on record. CWP No. 21902 of 2011 Petitioners are the unfortunate purchasers of a plot No.9, Sector-7, Panchkula, in an open auction. It is not in dispute that the above-said sale was conducted as per an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh against which no objection was raised by the HUDA authorities. Sale certificate was issued to the petitioners on 4.5.2005 (P-1), a copy of the same was also sent to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for necessary action. The possession of the said plot was delivered to the petitioners, vide letter dated 14.5.2005 (P-3) issued by the Local Commissioner appointed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. A request was also sent to the HUDA authorities for transferring the plot in favour of the petitioners on 25.5.2005 (P-4) intimating that the petitioners had paid the entire amount to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. In response to a letter written by the Estate Officer on 7.9.2005, necessary documents were deposited by the petitioners with the Estate Officer vide letter dated 15.9.2005 (P-5). Petitioners again wrote a letter to the HUDA authorities on 9.1.2006 (P-6) making a request for transfer of the plot in their names. The above-said request was reiterated vide letter dated 20.3.2006 (P-7) and letter dated 25.5.2006 (P-8). Vide letter dated 20.6.2006 (P-9), the Estate Officer-respondent No.3 intimated the petitioners that they should submit all the documents in original alongwith requisite affidavit and indemnity bond so that necessary action can be taken. Accordingly, petitioners submitted the application with requisite fee of Rs. 5,000/- for which, a receipt (P-10) was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners again wrote a letter dated 10.4.2007 (P-11) for transfer of plot, in question, so that construction could be raised. But nothing was done. In the said letter, it was specifically stated by the petitioners that for no fault of their, they would have to spend more amount on raising the construction as cost of the material is increasing day by day. But nothing was done. In the said letter, it was specifically stated by the petitioners that for no fault of their, they would have to spend more amount on raising the construction as cost of the material is increasing day by day. In the meantime, a public notice (P-12) appeared in the newspaper in the year 2007, vide which HUDA authorities decided to extend time of raising construction of the allotted sites beyond a period of 15 years upto 31.12.2007 subject to a condition of partial construction. The petitioners again wrote a letter dated 21.5.2007 (P-13) for transfer of the plot, in question, in their favour. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted a building plan on the prescribed Form-A (Rule-7) vide letter dated 24.5.2007 (P-14 colly) for sanction so that they may raise construction on the property in dispute. For the said purpose, petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as scrutiny charges. When nothing was done, the petitioners came to this Court by filing CWP No.6686 of 2008 with a prayer that directions be issued to the HUDA authorities to transfer the plot in question in their favour and also for approval of the building plan. The said writ petition was disposed of on 25.9.2008 by observing that no one had approached the Sub-Registrar concerned for registration of sale certificate and further on an undertaking by learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana that if an appropriate application is moved for the said purpose, it shall be considered expeditiously. 2. It is an admitted fact that, sale certificate (P-16) was registered on 22.12.2008 and intimation was sent by Joint/Sub-Registrar at Panchkula to the Estate Officer for taking necessary action for transfer of the property, in dispute, in favour of the petitioners. Vide notice dated 22.12.2008, respondent No.5 raised a demand for payment of stamp duty, which was deposited by the petitioners and the matter is still pending before the above-said officer. Before effecting transfer of the plot in question, it was intimated to the petitioners vide notice dated 10.9.2009 (P-18) by the Estate Officer that they are supposed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- towards extension fee to raise construction, also to submit re-allotment letter dated 7.10.2006 in original and photographs attested by a Magistrate. Vide receipt dated 15.9.2009 (P-19) an amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- was deposited by the petitioners with the Estate Officer. 1,78,000/- towards extension fee to raise construction, also to submit re-allotment letter dated 7.10.2006 in original and photographs attested by a Magistrate. Vide receipt dated 15.9.2009 (P-19) an amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- was deposited by the petitioners with the Estate Officer. In the meantime, HUDA authorities floated a scheme on 28.8.2009 for extension of time for construction up to 30.11.2009 subject to the following conditions:- (a) Plots where Building Plan was got approved, construction was started and Completion Certificate applied for but not issued due to some deficiencies. (b) Plots where Building Plan was got approved, construction started but Completion Certificate not applied for, since the required level of construction was reached late. (c) Where construction has been completed without getting buildings plan approved, (compoundable violation) provided they apply for grant of Occupation Certificates after raising minimum construction till 30.11.2009. 3. As per policy dated 28.8.2009, the allottees were to pay double the extension fee. Accordingly, the petitioners deposited another sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- on 17.9.2009, which is evident from receipt annexed as P-21. Thereafter, vide letter dated 18.9.2009 (P-22), the above-said plot was transferred in the name of petitioners. Petitioners again wrote a letter dated 18.9.2009 (P-23) for sanction of building plan. But nothing has been done till today. The above-said prayer was reiterated vide letter dated 22.10.2009 (P-24) and letter dated 30.11.2009 (P-25). Under the compelling circumstances, petitioners started raising construction as per the building plan already submitted with the authorities. 4. We are satisfied with the action taken by the petitioners because as per Regulation 8 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Buildings) Regulations, 1979, if building plan, after its submission is not approved within 60 days, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. The said provisions read thus:- "8. Permission to erect or re-erect (1) After an application in the prescribed form containing the required information and accompanied by necessary documents and fees as required in regulation 3 is received, the Estate Officer shall, after making such inquiry as he may consider necessary, pass an order either sanctioning or rejecting it in form BR III within 60 days from the receipt of the application. If at the expiration of period of 60 days no such orders in writing the has been passed by the Estate Officer then such application shall be deemed to have been sanctioned: (Provided that in case of certain areas/uses and category of plots to be notified, no such order in form BR-III is required and the permission shall be deemed to have been granted on the basis of the certificate of Architect that the building plans are in conformity with these regulations and the zoning plan/standard design for the plot." 5. The petitioners wrote a letter dated 17.2.2010 to the Estate Officer, HUDA intimating that they had started construction without water connection and sewerage connection. It was also intimated that temporary electricity meter connection has been given to them. The petitioners again sent a request vide letter dated 27.4.2010 (P-27) to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, for sanctioning the building plan. In that letter, it has specifically been stated that the building already stood constructed. Prayer was reiterated vide letter dated 14.5.2010 (P-28) and letter dated 24.5.2010 (P-29). The petitioners brought on record a letter dated 2.6.2011 (P-30) written by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Relevant contents of the said letter read thus:- From: Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. To The Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Memo No. SDC/4178 Dated:2-6-2011 Subject: Sanction of Building Plan and Issuance of O.C. Of Plot No.9, Sector 7, Panchkula. Please refer to your office letter No. A-1/6265 dated 17.5.11 on the subject cited matter. The case relates to sanction of building plan and issuance of occupation certificate of Plot No.9, Sector-7, Panchkula, in view of Extension Policy of HUDA. In this regard, the details of the case are submitted for your kind consideration and decision:- 1. The plot was purchased by the present allottee Sh. Ashok Sharma from the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, as per orders dated 4.5.05. 2. Sh.Ashok Sharma applied for transfer of plot on 20.7.06 but due to different reasons the plot could not be transferred upto 2009 and was finally transferred on 18.9.09 on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Sh.Ashok Sharma applied afresh building plan vide diary No. 14889 dated 7.6.07. 4. 2. Sh.Ashok Sharma applied for transfer of plot on 20.7.06 but due to different reasons the plot could not be transferred upto 2009 and was finally transferred on 18.9.09 on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Sh.Ashok Sharma applied afresh building plan vide diary No. 14889 dated 7.6.07. 4. The plan was examined by the office and he was intimated to submit copy of paper possession, copy of allotment letter and copy of malba receipt on 21.6.07 vide registered letter which was received back with the remarks that the house found locked despite several visits. 5. The notice was again sent on 23.8.07. 6. On 22.9.09, the allottee submitted the documents desired vide above notice and the fresh building plan was accepted by the computer system on 7.10.09. 7. As per note of SDC dated 13.11.09, it is clear that plan scrutiny charges and malba security were deposited by the allottee on 24.5.07 & 5.6.07, respectively. 8. The building plan was scrutinized by the office on 4.11.2009 and thereafter Junior Engineer concerned has reported that no construction at site. The report of J.E. is undated but it has been reported after 4.11.2009 meaning thereby that plot was not constructed upto 30.11.09. 9. The report of concerned Junior Engineer has been obtained now and it has been reported that about 25% plot is constructed at site. The original plot file and building file are also enclosed herewith for kind perusal of the record. It is clear from above that intention of the allottee was not bad and allottee seems to be willing to construct the house as he had applied for sanction of building plan in 2007 i.e. immediately after purchase of plot and had completed the documents i.e. immediately after the transfer of plot in his name in 2009. On submission of documents on 22.9.2009, plan was scrutinized but could not be sanctioned due to expiry of construction period. The possession of the plot was originally offered on 1.7.84 and as per policy dated 28.8.09, he has to complete the minimum construction of 25% upto 30.11.09. It is clear from above that the present allottee could not avail any time for construction of plot due to non transfer of plot for about two years. Hence, it is recommended to grant permission to regularize the case keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is clear from above that the present allottee could not avail any time for construction of plot due to non transfer of plot for about two years. Hence, it is recommended to grant permission to regularize the case keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. Sd/- Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula. DA/As above. Photocopy of Letter No.1875 dt.18.3.11 & Letter No.9047 dt.12.11.10" 6. It is admitted by the above Office that building plan was submitted for sanction in the year 2007. It was examined at the appropriate level. Additional documents were also received against communication. Scrutiny charges were deposited by the allottee on 24.5.2007. The building plan was scrutinized by the office on 4.11.2009. There was no construction at the site. Subsequent thereto, another report was submitted intimating that construction to the extent of 25% has been raised on the site in dispute. It is also stated that there was no fault of the allottee for not raising the construction in time. The Estate Officer recommended that allottee be granted permission to raise construction on the site in dispute. 7. It is on record that building plan was submitted by the petitioners for sanction in the year 2007. Transfer was effected in the name of the petitioners on 18.9.2009. Obviously, the allottee could not raise construction within about two months as was reported by the Junior Engineer vide his report dated 4.11.2009. It is a case where under the above compelling circumstances, petitioners came to this Court. 8. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the petitioners did not apply for transfer of the plot in time. It is an admitted fact that the building plan was submitted for approval on 7.6.2007. Transfer was effected in the name of the petitioners on 18.9.2009. It is also admitted that extension fee to raise construction at double the amount was received by the department against a receipt dated 15.9.2009. Thereafter, in terms of the policy dated 28.8.2009, another amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- was received by the HUDA authorities against receipt dated 17.9.2009. It was noted by the office itself, as is evident from the letter dated 2.6.2011 that construction to the extent of 25% was raised by the petitioners before the said date. Thereafter, in terms of the policy dated 28.8.2009, another amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- was received by the HUDA authorities against receipt dated 17.9.2009. It was noted by the office itself, as is evident from the letter dated 2.6.2011 that construction to the extent of 25% was raised by the petitioners before the said date. It is a case where at every step arbitrariness has been shown by the respondents, firstly in not transferring the property and thereafter in not sanctioning the building plan, for which various communications were made by the petitioners. The building plan was scrutinized, however, no final decision was taken thereon. During pendency of this writ petition, the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula has passed an order on 18.10.2012 (P-33), wherein it has been stated that since the petitioners did not apply for occupation certificate in terms of Regulation 11 of the above-said Regulations on or before 30.11.2009, no relief can be given to the allottees. We feel that the said order has been passed without any application of mind. The petitioners purchased the said plot in an open auction through Debt Recovery Tribunal. The said sale was conducted after giving intimation to the HUDA authorities. The said sale was virtually accepted when transfer of the property was effected in favour of the petitioners on 18.9.2009. The petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 13,39,540/- on 25.9.2008, towards extension fee with respondent No.3, thereafter again deposited Rs. 1,78,000/- on 15.9.2009 and Rs. 1,78,000/- on 17.10.2009 for the said purpose, besides some lesser amount at different times. The petitioners were not given any reply. The petitioners started raising construction in terms of Regulation 8 of the said Regulations. As per inter-departmental communication dated 2.6.2011 (P-30), it is only stated that building plan was scrutinized on 22.9.2009 but it was not sanctioned because of expiry of the construction period. By filing written statements, the respondents took frivolous objections for which the petitioners were never intimated. The behaviour of the authorities is not reasonable. They are to be blamed for the delay caused in sanctioning the building plan and for effecting transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had to come to this Court twice for settlement of their legal right for no fault at their part. The order dated 18.10.2012 (P-33) was also passed without any application of mind. They are to be blamed for the delay caused in sanctioning the building plan and for effecting transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners had to come to this Court twice for settlement of their legal right for no fault at their part. The order dated 18.10.2012 (P-33) was also passed without any application of mind. The petitioners had deposited a huge amount of more than Rs. 1 crore towards price of the plot, extension fee etc. 9. Taking note of the above-said facts, we allow the present writ petition. The building plan submitted by the petitioners in the year 2007 shall be deemed to have been sanctioned. The petitioners be issued a Completion Certificate after inspecting the building plan and if any construction raised by the petitioners is in violation of building plan referred to above, the same be compounded, if it is compoundable, otherwise, the same will be rectified by the petitioners within the requisite period. So far as the payment of stamp duty is concerned, the matter is left open and the petitioners may take up this issue with respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is also directed that sewerage as well as water connection be provided to the petitioners. Needful shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, heavy cost will be imposed upon the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula.