Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15746 of 2012 DATE OF DECISION :
16. 07.2013 Swaran Rani ...PETITIONER Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Rahul Garg, Advocate, for the respondents.
*** SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
( Oral ) Vide allotment letter dated 23.8.1991, one Smt.
Anjali Jain was originally allotted plot No.106, Sector 15, Jagadhri.
According to the condition of the allotment letter, the allottee was required to complete the construction within a period of two years from the date of offer of possession.
The said allottee in this case did not complete the construction within the said stipulated period.
In the year 2004, with the prior permission of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri (respondent No.3 herein).the said plot was transferred in favour of one Smt.
Renu Verma.
She also did not complete the construction and sold the said plot to the petitioner with the prior permission of respondent No.3.
The re-allotment letter dated Dass Narotam 2013.07.23 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.15746 of 2012 -2- 25.10.2010 was issued in favour of the petitioner.
By that time, the maximum period for completing the construction, provided under the HUDA policy, was over, and on that account, vide order dated 18.5.2012 (Annexure P-15).the plot was resumed after providing an opportunity hearing to the petitioner.
Against the said order, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner on 16.8.2012, without availing the alternative remedy of appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
During the couRs.of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the latest policy of the HUDA, notified on 12.4.2013, with regard to the time limit for construction on residential/commercial plots beyond the stipulated period.
In this new policy, there is no upper limit of time within which the allottee is required to complete the minimum required construction.
In clause (vi) of the said policy, it has been specifically mentioned that the policy shall be applicable to all the cases where resumption orders have been passed due to not construction and the litigation with regard to the said resumption is pending before any Forum.
It has been further mentioned in the said policy that in such cases, the Estate Officer shall inform the Court/Authority where the appeal/revision of former allottee against the resumption order is pending, with a request to the said Court/Authority to dispose of the appeal/revision in terms of the new extension policy.
Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the implementation of the aforesaid policy, as well as the entitlement of the Dass Narotam 2013.07.23 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.15746 of 2012 -3- petitioner to be considered under the said policy, her case being pending in this Court prior to the said policy.
In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the said policy and regularise her case by charging the extension fee according to the said policy.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE July 16, 2013 ( MAHAVIR S.
CHAUHAN ) ndj JUDGE Dass Narotam 2013.07.23 12:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document