Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1344 (PNJ)

Atul Jain v. Notified Area Committee, Manimajra

2013-10-04

MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This writ petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 5.5.1992 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Executive Officer, Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, whereby the residential site No. 87 in 61.21 Area Development Scheme, Manimajra, was ordered to be resumed on the ground of non-payment of extension fee and non-construction within the stipulated time. When the matter was taken up for regular hearing on 11.9.2013, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the following order was passed by this Court:- "In this case, the plot in question, which was allotted to one Kanwaljit Kaur, from whom it was purchased by the petitioners on 10.11.1987 with permission of the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, was resumed on account of nonpayment of extension fee and non-construction within the stipulated time. Though as per the allotment letter, the allottee was required to complete the construction within two years, but there was no policy or circular in the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, for charging the extension fee. However, vide resolution No. 4 dated 17.12.1990 (Annexure R-2), a policy was framed for charging the extension fee at the rate prescribed therein. Without taking care of the said policy, the plot in question was resumed vide order dated 6.5.1992 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No. 4. Admittedly, no action for resumption of the plot was initiated prior to the aforesaid policy. Therefore, at the time of the resumption, the Notified Area Committee, Manimajra, was bound to look into the said policy, which has been totally ignored. Moreover, the resumption order was passed while observing that the allottee had failed to deposit the extension fee upto date. It is the case of the petitioners that at no point of time, any demand notice was issued to them for payment of the extension fee, and in case, demand notice is issued to them, they will pay the amount. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the resumption has been ordered only on the ground that the extension fee, which is very meager amount, has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are liable to pay the extension fee from 17.12.1990, the date on which the policy regarding charging of extension fee on account of non-construction was introduced. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are liable to pay the extension fee from 17.12.1990, the date on which the policy regarding charging of extension fee on account of non-construction was introduced. According to the petitioners, they had completed the construction in the month of March, 1994. In these facts, they are liable to pay the extension fee from 17.12.1990 till the date of completion of construction by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are ready to pay the said amount with interest. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 seeks time to have instructions and to calculate the extension fee payable by the petitioners with interest and submit the calculation. Adjourned to 03.10.2013." In compliance with the said order, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 has submitted the following calculation, according to which a sum of Rs. 31,100/ is due against the petitioners on account of extension fee:- Year Area Rate per sq. yds. (Rs.) Amount (in Rs.) 1990 536.22 8 4290 1991 536.22 10 5362 1992 536.22 10 5362 1993 536.22 15 8043 1994 536.22 15 8043 Total 31100 In response to the said calculation, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted the following calculation, according to which a sum of Rs. 16,578/ only is due against the petitioners on account of extension fee:- Period Area Rate Amount 17.12.1990 to 16.12.1991 (One year) 536.22 8/ 4,290/ 17.12.1991 to 16.12.1992 (One year) 536.22 10/ 5,362/ 17.12.1992 to 16.12.1993 (One year) 536.22 10/ 5,362/ 16.12.1993 to 31.03.1994 (3 & ½ months) 536.22 10/ 1,564/ Total (Extension Fee Payable) 16,578/ We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the said calculations and do not find any justification for charging the extension fee at the rate of Rs. 8/ per square yard for the entire year 1990, whereas the policy for charging the extension fee was framed on 17.12.1990. In this regard, the calculation submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. In the calculation, submitted by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3, for the years 1993 and 1994, the extension fee has charged at the rate of Rs. 15/ per square yard, but when we asked learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 to show the notification/resolution of the respondent Committee, whereby the said rate was enhanced from Rs. 10/ to Rs. 15/ per square yard, but when we asked learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 to show the notification/resolution of the respondent Committee, whereby the said rate was enhanced from Rs. 10/ to Rs. 15/ per square yard, she very fairly stated that no such notification/resolution was ever issued/passed. She submits that it was enhanced by the Executive Officer. Thus, in our opinion, the charging of extension fee at the rate of Rs. 10/ per square yard for the years 1993 and 1994 is also not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners will deposit Rs. 16,578/ within a period of two weeks from today. On payment of the said amount, the entire liability of the petitioners on account of extension fee will be satisfied. So far as construction is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the building plan was submitted by the petitioners to the respondent Committee, which was recommended for sanction, as is evident from the letter dated 16.3.1992 (Annexure P-3), and according to that building plan, the petitioners had raised construction in the year 1994. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 5.5.1992, resuming the site in question on account of nonpayment of extension fee and non-construction within the stipulated time, is set aside. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.